If AI is doing all of the work of making things then people will be consuming those things 24/7/365. It will be Black Friday all of the time.

Isn't replacing labor in our capitalist system the reason for automation with AI? That capitalist system will still be there along with one if its requirements: people willing to consume more and more stuff. And they will have all day, all week, all year to do it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't think it would result in a black-friday forever situtation, Capitalism where everybody is indefinitely rich.
I've spent quite some time trying to figure out such a society, and the AI would have to be our mommy, and like good mommies, doesn't spoil the child by granting every request. It can't be capitalist, because all capitalism is based on tracking indebtedness to the labors/products of another, but if nobody works and stuff is free, there is no equity anywhere.
So textbook communism? Not meant the bad way that western culture paints that word. Families run by communism: All children obey rules and expect to be cared for in return, but the children have no external responsibilities of their own.
The AI is the mommy, and provides food and shelter for all, but not unlimited. It would be big-brother in that it observes all. This would seem necessary to preserve law and order. Not sure what punishment would be like, since incarceration seems to be simply a less comfortable jail cell than the one we're already in.
Sans capitalism, we wouldn't really own anything including a home. But there needs to be provisions for ownership of irreplaceable things like one's own creation (artwork and such). If I travel elsewhere, the place I put my art might be occupied by another, and the artwork needs storage of some sort. Such storage must be limited.
Would there still be an economy based on human-produced products? I am a great artist and produce original paintings that are in demand, a resource that is limited, despite the AI being able to reproduce the work effortlessly. Would there be a concept of the original still being better than one of these copies and thus 'worth something'? Flip side is that my child brings home an ugly piece of school art that had value to me just because it becomes part of the memorabilia that makes up the history of my child. I go on vacation and the AI finds it most efficient to destroy the thing when I'm gone and make a new identical one when I return. Am I offended? If so, original works have value, and capitalism cannot be completely dead.

The AI is of course going to have to do something humans seem incapable of on their own: Find a balance where resources are renewable and thus the books balance. It would have to do what are currently immoral acts: Compulsory birth control and probably death control. A mommy (one mommy, not multiple competing ones) can do this. Our current morals (be they from God or society) seem designed for maximum suffering. The benevolent AI would need to rewrite that code.

PUN = unobserved events will resemble observed events

How do we proved PUN? — TheMadFool

It is a principle, not a hard truth.
PUN = unobserved events will probably resemble observed events

Finding an exception does not deter from the principle, it just modifies the list of observed events. The principle cannot be used as hard proof of anything since it is merely a statement of probability.

If we are a simulation then I suspect our knowledge of mathematics would be deliberately limited by our builders..... — Jake Tarragon

If they (simulation runners) are deliberately changing what we know, then it wouldn't be us that they're simulating.

I guess if you define Ether to be a substance that can be said to be stationary, then it defines a frame, and you can move relative to it, and light speed would be non-constant. This is pretty much how they falsified the ether model.

The Lumiferous Ether when it was thought to exist, was to serve the purpose of an universal frame of reference. A local volume of the Ether would then serve the same purpose. — FreeEmotion

Yes, that was the model for a while. It predicts that if two observers were in the same local volume but only one of them stationary, the moving one could be detected by that observer measuring a different speed of light. But it is always measured the same, falsifying this view.

Take for example the train and lightning strikes thought experiment. I have always thought that one could tell which lightning strike occurred first by stopping the train, and taking readings with measuring rods and clocks. — FreeEmotion

In the frame of the train, it is already stopped. Typically, the lightning example has the two lightning events being simultaneous in the frame of the platform, but the experiment works with the roles reversed as well.

At the time the train is moving,

Only in the frame of the platform

however, it may not be possible to do this, due to the impossibility of using variations in light speed to determine simultaneity of events.

The experiment presumes a fixed light speed, as has always been measured. If the speed was variable, empirical measurements would vary depending on the frame in which the experiment took place. This has been done, and it is always a constant.

This is an 'as it happens' view. Science also consists of taking measurements of past events using not speeds but displacements and locally recorded times.

In the train example, there are two observers taking the measurements, each spatially centered between the two events. So the events are simultaneous if they're detected at the same time, even though it takes time for the light from the events to reach the measurer.

Could we define an arbitrary boundary based on a set of stars that move very slowly relative to each other? Within this frame of reference, we can define absolute motion, does this make sense? — FreeEmotion

If it is relative to something (your set of stars), it is not absolute. Any absolute frame would not be in reference to a particular thing.

How large does the frame of reference have to be to become useful?

Frames don't have a size.

P3: Before the big-bang, there was neither time nor space. — Brian A

If there was no time, there is no 'before the bang'.
I have issues with the others as well, but P3 has that blatant self contradiction

What if X and Y have different features? X is 1.2 m in height and Y is 1.9 m and a different set of features. Can they be identical? If not, then I do not share identity with the child my mother raised.

Your example above (cars) are not identical since they have different location. It gets trickier when they don't.

Well, No mammals are cats, to follow the exact same form, but the two are the same statement.
So indeed, these are both examples of conclusions that don't follow from the premises.

Intuitive yes, but if we went by that, the world would still be flat
— noAxioms
Yes, Minkowski time, which is gridlike, is a convenience for scientific problems. It is not real time/duration as we experience it in life. — Rich

Interesting choice of quotes to attach to that response.
So you're saying that the round Earth model is just a convenience for scientific problems, not corresponding the real flat world as we experience it in life.
Not absurd, but pretty idealist. Not sure if FreeEmotion is asking about this.

Are you claiming there would be an experiential difference between the views?
— noAxioms

Indeed, explicit within Relativity, two observers are experiencing events differently. To Bergson, time (duree), is precisely what we experience as life. Memory is continuously evolving and sometimes it feels as time is moving very slowly and sometimes very quickly depending upon what we are experiencing. This is the duree of life, what Bergson called real time. Thomas Mann (and other modernist writers) attempted to express this experience in their novels, such as Mann's Magic Mountain. — Rich

So your claim is that under Minkowski time (time has same ontology as space, something that relativity suggests but doesn't demand), experienced time would not seem to drag when one is bored?
Not sure where in any of the descriptions that prediction is made.

Does Special Relativity apply only to 'real time' events? That is, events where information is communicated only by the speed of light and at the speed of light? No examining of historical traces or event logs, Einstein's train thought experiment seems to only illustrate real time effects. — FreeEmotion

Not sure what a 'real time event' is. If there is communication, there is the event of the message being sent, and another where it is received. That's two events.
Einstein's experiments involve implications of frame-independent constant light-speed, so yes, there's going to be discussion of light in them. Not sure how that makes it more 'real time'.

This forum is a much freer and more open forum than some of the science fora I have been on. Refreshing change. Thank you. — FreeEmotion

Been on that, and yes, it seems a place for people who know their stuff to make fun of people who don't. Some are worse that way than others.

So does this mean that the Relativity of Simultaneity does not apply to God? — FreeEmotion

I think (without proof) that time is part of the universe, and that clocks measure it (temporal distance). God is outside the universe presumably (unless he created himself sort of like the legend of Abe Lincoln being born in a log cabin he built with his own hands) so the physics of this universe have zero application to God. If you want, you can suggest the physics of God as almost everybody does, but somehow I don't think God takes much notice of us telling him how his physics must work.
Now if you put time outside the universe (as Rich does), then it can be said that God existed before the universe and eventually caused it to begin, and it is a thing that continues to 'happen'. Then I guess the question of relativity at least has some bearing. Anyway, in this interpretation, time is not part of the universe and thus would seem utterly undetectable. Clocks don't measure it (as relativity shows), but people are special and apparently do detect it, but not well enough to say what is going on elsewhere right now, so I find this claim completely dubious. This is probably not a fair description, since it is a view I don't hold. Ask the question of its adherents.

I would think he knows the Universe the way we would know fish in a fishbowl - we know were each one is, the limits, the center of the fishbowl ( I note your comments) , and the position and velocity of each fish in real time (since fish move at very much less than the speed of light, there are no detectable relativistic effects for us). He would know whether a fish is absolutely at rest or at motion with regard to the edges of the fishbowl, for example, or the water (ether?) or an arbitrarily chosen set of water molecules which happen to be in the same inertial frame?

Relativity says there is no outside boundary, the bowl grows over time, and there is no possible designation of something stationary that gives a sub-light velocity to most of the fish.
The center has no position and no duration, so it does not define such a reference. It is an event, not a frame. Where on this map is the center of Earth? "Not on the map." OK, but which spot is directly over the center? "All of them".

Not a religious argument but more an experiential — Rich

Are you claiming there would be an experiential difference between the views? That would constitute an empirical test, no?

and intuitive one based upon Bergson's studies of biology, mathematics, and education.

Intuitive yes, but if we went by that, the world would still be flat with the sun being carried overhead each day. Very few scientific advancements in the last couple centuries would qualify as intuitive findings.

Time (durée), as it is experienced, is heterogeneous and continuous.

???? So we should experience a series of stationary images while watching a 60fps movie.

This is the opposite of scientific time which is homogenous and discontinuous.

No idea how this relates to ontology of time, or what you mean by 'scientific time'.

I think what I am really getting at is: is a purely Newtonian universe possible, with all relativity being Galilean Relativity. Could God create such an universe which neither violated Newtonian physics nor Relativity as an illusion due to the limits of the speed of light, meaning limiting the speed of information transfer? — FreeEmotion

God is defined to be able to do anything, yes. But no, this is not that universe. Such a universe is possible. It would probably have luminiferous aether if there was a light speed of sorts, but the aether would be something you could carry with you to increase the speed of information transfer. There would be no limit to that. If there was a limit, then no Galilean Relativity.

Sound works like that. It has a speed limit (that varies with the medium), but if I'm in a supersonic jet, I can hear the person behind me talking. Outside, nobody hears the jet approaching. Sound obeys Galilean Relativity only because we can carry its aether with us.

One can imagine that information transfer is limited by the speed of light, reality is not. For example, is God's knowledge of an event is delayed by the time it takes light from the event to reach Him? Surely this is an absurd statement? (Asimov hinted at this, that the speed of light was slowing the second coming of Christ).

Your God has a location, and light travels there? Indeed, that's absurd. God is outside and does not gain knowledge the way we do: by waiting for physical photons and such to reach us. God has access to all states, and thus can meaningfully be said to be everywhere.

Bergson's critiques were philosophical in nature. He didn't question the scientific aspect, i.e. simultaneity of measurements. — Rich

This is correct. ToR suggests but does not assert an ontological status to time. To date I've seem many claims of empirical evidence supporting both sides, but I've never found any of them to be valid.
Bergson's claim was religious based, claiming that the immaterial mind somehow can detect what no clock or other physical device can: The rate of advancement of the present.
There is an empirical test against that claim (do the twin experiment with a human instead of a clock), but such an expenditure of resources would only prove that people detect time, not the advancement of the present. It would not conclusively be evidence of the ontological status of time.
Wayfarer, I've yet to read your article on the subject

You've not defined a paradox. You just gave multiple choice. Pick one and stick with it.
You don't need to reach for fiction to see this. Amoebas do this every day.

Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:

Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.

All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash. — Michael Ossipoff

A more unbiased summary of somebody else's view I've never read.
Off-point of me to comment, but you seem to dislike similar assessments of your own views. Just sayin..

Yes, here's what there is:

******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts
...

I cut most of the meat out, because the statement began with "there are" which is sort of my point. The rest I actually kind of get, and approve more than you know, despite the fact that we seem to have built such different towers on such similar foundations.

It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?

Someone answered:

If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.

Not so. If there were no facts, then the fact above simply would not be. That's not even a paradox.
It has no frame in which it has meaning, so the potential truth of it doesn't exist either.

That's my take anyway.

There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical, but then again this is my POV of physicalism. — Rich

You're right in that the term is used loosely and is but one category of beliefs.
The way I've heard it distinguished (sometimes, not necessarily) is that Materialism involves what Ossipoff is denying: that material is fundamental, and that the existence of the material is thus some sort of what is being called a brute fact. Physicalism just say's we're physical things, that people are built of the material and nothing immaterial. It does not necessarily assert that the physical is fundamental, or even objectively existent.

How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.," — Michael Ossipoff

Materialism would perhaps care to address that question, but your question assumes that there is something, physical or not. So how do you explain that there is whatever you assume there is?

It seems to be a contingent truth, putting it in the realm of modal logic which requires a frame. I (whatever I am) am an existing state a frame which we'll call the universe. Existing in the universe is not the same as existing, so I (a physicalist in this context) make no such assertion of that generalization.

As purely philosophical question, would God be able to define an absolute frame of reference, — FreeEmotion

God is free to define a sorting of all the events into time order. No inertial frame of reference does that, so it would not be an inertial frame if it was done.
It would have no effect on us if such an arbitrary definition was made.

say the centre of the known (to Him) universe,

It is known to me even, so I hope God is aware of it. Didn't you see my post about that? The centre of the universe does not define a frame, even if it does suggest an origin for a non-orthogonal coordinate system.

and all that there is beyond the reach of light and time?

Don't know what you mean by that. All parts of the universe of which I am aware (including the ones undetectable from here) are temporal and lit up, even if only dimly. Perhaps you define the universe as more than just what came from the big bang.

Once we say God knows something, then it forces it into the realm of existence since God cannot know something that does not exist?

Not sure if that qualifies as a circular definition. What if God knows that something doesn't exist? Probably not a valid example since I seem to be playing epistemological meta-language games in making that statement. The nonexistent thing doesn't exist, but the fact that God is aware of its nonexistence does exist. But it must exist, having been referenced...

I'm not sure of your definition of 'exists' either. Does 2+2=4 exist? Surely God knows it, so it must exist.
I find existence to be a relation, not a property, so there is no 'exists', there is only 'exists in'. Your definition may vary, but I cannot comment clearly without knowing it.

Mr Cee is moving at about .9999c one way and Mr Bee the same speed in the opposite direction. Nobody is going faster than light. The separation is about 2 trillion light years and they both exist in that frame. — noAxioms

The above assumes a constant expansion rate to the universe, not a true thing. Given that it is accelerating, neither Mr Bee nor Mr Cee are in that frame of reference....
The trick works for fairly distant places, but my example put these events a couple trillion light years apart, too far.
So that brings us down to one's definition of existence to ask if Mr Cee exists.

So which one are you rejecting here? — Mr Bee

I'm rejecting the prior post saying that sufficiently distant places don't exist. I gave an example of an event 2 trillion light years away that exists now, and where nothing is moving faster than light, thus refuting my assertion of the nonexistence of the event.

Seems like the former, but if that is the case, then I still don't understand where the assertion that some things don't exist in some reference frames if they are moving away faster than light. Your response still amounts to this assumption that they do, but I am afraid I don't see how or why.

Well, in our frame, Mr Cee is in the future and does not currently exist, so is not moving faster than light. Similarly, we don't exist in Mr Cee's frame. The frame is not a valid one for us since it would have us moving at about 140c, far beyond light speed.

Also, since we are on the topic of absolute frames, I don't think that GR allows for the notion of a reference frame, due to the curvature of space-time.

Yes, it says that SR laws only work locally. They break down over any significant distance, and my example far exceeded that. Does it make it invalid? I was just trying to counter my prior assertion.
Messages could in principle reach distant places if the expansion of the universe was constant, but it isn't. Hence the event horizon, which delimits events that can never have a causal effect here on Earth.
But coordinate systems exist that map really distant events like Mr Cee's post. Mr Cee has a proper-distance from us (length of a tape measure that curves with space), and a proper velocity (how much that measurement grows per second) and that value can be greater than light speed without violation of GR.

Instead the idea of an absolute frame is replaced with a preferred global foliation, which though technically not a frame of reference, defines a global time like the correct inertial frame should under SR. I am not sure if your statements above apply there, but I think I should throw that out since GR is the theory we are currently using.

Yes, there is an obvious global foliation (comoving coordinates), and I was unaware that GR rules (with space and velocity expressed in actual distance, not proper distance) would be valid at all in that coordinate system. Yes, that's where 'proper-distance' comes from. It essentially paints 4D spacetime in polar coordinates instead of the rectangular coordinates that yield inertial frames. The math to do Lorentz calculations in polar coordinates would be an interesting exercise, perhaps beyond my capabilities.

Not sure I am getting the connection between things that expand from us at a speed faster than light and them not existing. Sure they won't ever interact with us given the light speed limit and all, but that does not imply that they would cease to exist for us. — Mr Bee

I'm going to have to eat my words then.
I am on record for saying that the distance between any two events (points in spacetime) can be expressed by pure spatial separation or by pure temporal separation, or if right on the edge between the two, then undefined singularity. That assertion contradicts my denial of existence of things not in our reference frame.

So consider the event of you making that post, and Mr Cee on some other forum on some seriously distant planet making a similar post. Mr Cee does not exist in the frame in which Mr Bee is at rest, but that just means the wrong frame was chosen. Consider the frame where some spot about halfway is at rest. In that frame, the universe is now about a trillion years old and Mr Bee and Mr Cee are very near opposite edges of the expanding universe where time is dilated about 70x. Mr Cee is moving at about .9999c one way and Mr Bee the same speed in the opposite direction. Nobody is going faster than light. The separation is about 2 trillion light years and they both exist in that frame.
Words eaten. Thank you for the correction.

Sort of its own disproof then. The logic is sound, and the conclusion obviously contradicts reality, thus at least one of the premises must be wrong. I happen to take issue with all three of them.

Imagine, if there was a God, or an "Intelligence" that knew everything, and whose knowledge is not limited by the speed of light. Would this allow the possibility of an absolute centre of the universe, or an absolute frame of reference? Could God know if one 'correct' inertial frame exists, or not? — FreeEmotion

It's not that we don't know the absolute frame. Any designation of one would render over 99% of the universe nonexistent since only a tiny percentage of matter exists in any particular frame. Most of it is increasing its distance from that frame at a pace considerably faster than light and thus can never ever interact with the matter reasonably stationary in the frame. The bulk of all matter is nonexistent in any given frame. So it is not a matter of us simply not knowing. There cannot be one correct answer.

There is a center of the universe, but it doesn't suggest a frame. Most people deny it for the same reason the center of the Earth appears on no map. If it did (Paris??), it would define the correct time zone, no? Look at the entire Earth and the center is obvious. Look at the entire universe, not just one surface of it, and the center becomes obvious.

I might also add that the Lorentz transformation is used to preserve the laws of physics when translating any event from a moving frame to a non moving or say local (your) frame. — FreeEmotion

Frames don't move, and there are not fast and slow ones. They all are references defining zero velocity, so we might for instance consider the frames in which the Earth, the moon, the ship, or the muon is stationary. None of these different frames is 'faster' than another. Yes, the Lorentz transformation is used to translate time and distance between various frames.

In effect, when we observe things happening in a fast - moving frame, it looks like the laws of physics are violated, but when the proper transformations are made, it all comes out right in the end. Is this more or less correct?

Well, at no point does it look like any laws are being violated. The laws would be wrong if that was observed. That's how ToR came about: The laws appeared to be violated, so they knew they needed better ones. I think I see what you mean though. The muons in the atmosphere appear to violate half-life laws (under Newtonian physics) until the transformation is used to yield the actual age of the typical particle measured here near sea level.

Take the statement

There are fast particles that get created in the upper atmosphere (60000 m up) that have a lifespan long enough for light to travel about 600 meters before decaying. Almost none should reach the ground, but a vast percentage of them do because their decay is delayed by the time dilation from moving at about 99.5% of light. They age slow enough to reach a destination well beyond their life expectancy of about 2 microseconds. They could not do this if the dilation was but an illusion.
— noAxioms

"There are fast particles that get created in the upper atmosphere (60000 m up) "

Fast as measured in our frame

Yes. Those particlues (muons I think) are stationary in their own frame, and Earth is what moves fast.

"that have a lifespan long enough"

A lifespan in our frame of reference

No, in its own. I have a halflife of 72 years in my own frame, and an arbitrarily large one in other frames, which is why I can get to places more distant than 72 light years away.

" for light to travel about 600 meters "

in which reference frame?

2.2μs half life multiplied by c. In its own frame I guess, since duration is otherwise ambiguous.

"before decaying. Almost none should reach the ground, but a vast percentage of them do because their decay is delayed"

When measured in our FoR

Yes, only in our frame. In its own frame, it doesn't travel at all, but Earth moves and hits the particle before it dies.

Could there be any other explanation for this? I accept it as is, but just wondering.

No other theory competes at this time. If you want, you can interpret the data as one 'correct' inertial frame, and none of the clocks or tape measures are accurate unless stationary in that frame. In that sense, time and space dilation would be an illusion born of not having accurate measuring tools, but then we would have no tools to measure actual time and space at all, so we're not really measuring anything accurately. That's a pretty useless interpretation.

If the forming-Sun, at the time that the ecliptic disk outspread from it — Michael Ossipoff

The disk spreads out??
— noAxioms

Yes.

I find nowhere in your descriptions where material moves outward.
Everything in moving inward, which is what makes it spin faster, yes, like the figure skater. Once orbital velocity is achieved, it moves inward no further. Outward requires expenditure of energy that needs to come from somewhere.

Yes, the centrifugal force experienced by material at the solar equator overcomes gravity, and the material spreads out as a disk in the plane of the forming-Sun's equator.

There is no centrifugal force pushing anything out. All matter is accelerating inward, not outward. If matter is in low orbit, energy must by supplied to put it in a higher orbit. Where does that come from?

But no, the angular momentum needn't have increased during the gravitational contraction. The pre-existing angular momentum, and the conservation of that angular-momentum, meant that, as the rotational radius decreased, thereby decreasing the forming-Sun's moment-of-intertia, the angular velocity had to increase.

My bold. Yes, radius is decreasing in each description. But then you claim it increases, that the disk is spreading out, not contracting. Your descriptions are contradictory all the way. I never claimed a change in angular momentum, which seems to be what your attempting to teach me.

No increase in angular-momentum was needed to spin-out the ecliptic disk. The decreasing overall radius of rotation, of the forming-Sun, meant that a large increase of angular-velocity was needed in order to conserve angular momentum.

No, the sun spins faster as it contracts. None of this pushes the disk out. Saturn has a nice disk, the rings. It did not emit those rings. It simply is not capable any more than the sun could produce orbiting material.

Gravity tended to form a sphere.

Only nonrotating matter, so no.

The pre-existing angular-momentum, and the reduction in moment-of-inertia, inevitably (due to conservation of angular-momentum) resulted in a great increase in angular-velocity, spinning-out the ecliptic disk along the plane of the forming-Sun's equator.

Absolutely not. The angular velocity cannot increase if the radius is growing.

That's not my idea. It's the now-accepted explanation for the formation of the ecliptic disk from which the planets were formed.

Argument from authority, as was used in the reply to Bitter Crank. I'd accept it better with a link to this "accepted explanation". He pretty much quoted from the NASA site which is about as 'now accepted' as the explanations are going to get.

Mechanical energy (gravitational potential energy) was of course being converted to heat of contraction, so, yes, mechanical energy was being lost.

Gravitational potential plus kinetic energy is what I called mechanical energy, for lack of knowing a better term. The cloud always had it (even if gravitational is negative), but some of that energy is lost to friction in the contraction process, hence the heating up of all the places where matter is clumping. That energy is lost to entropy. You have not posited the source of the energy propelling the matter in the disk to higher orbits. The sun can spin all it wants and not transfer any of that energy to the orbiting stuff.

If your cognitive faculties are a result of evolution by natural selection and random genetic mutation you don´t have any reason to trust your cognitive faculties. For evolution "aims" to survival and not to produce true beliefs. — nixu

While I might agree with you that evolution does not produce true beliefs, I didn't see where Michael Ossipoff said otherwise. There was no mention of truth nor belief in his post, and evolution selecting for fitness rather than truth is a far better reason to trust one's cognitive faculties. No, I don't trust my intuitions to be truthful for this reason. That much I recognize, if that's what you mean. But recognizing the lies is more difficult than one might expect. You seem to be arguing for one of them.

But will the solar probe offending enough to bring about the coming of the great white handkerchief? Probably not, but is just 'probably' worth that kind of risk?

True, but in an infinite amount of time, it occurs an infinite number of times, and that's nothing to sneeze at, cloud or no cloud. — Hanover

Resutling in a rotation free and satellite-free system of one object, perhaps large enough to be a star, or perhaps a lonely dark planet with neither year, month, nor day. I wonder what religion they'd come up with.

Whence all this spinning? — Bitter Crank

It is statistically almost impossible that a random group of matter happens to have zero net rotational inertial. For instance, Andromeda is coming at us, but not exactly straight at us, and impossible point target. The amount off target represents an obscene angular momentum, enough to throw a great deal of the stars away when the two combine.

Anyway, a cloud of dust is like that. You don't see the rotation in the nebulas when it is all spread out, but it's there. Contract it into a tighter radius and like the figure skater, spins far faster when the parts are pulled in. Ours actually had less rotation than is typical, and thus formed only the one star. Multiple-star solar systems are about as common as the single ones.

Well, I was referring to the forming-Sun, at the time of the outspreading of the ecliptic disk, as "the Sun", even if its fusion hadn't ignited.by that time. — Michael Ossipoff

If the forming-Sun, at the time that the ecliptic disk outspread from it,

The disk spreads out?? Gravity is pulling it in, not out. You seem to envision the process as something like a ball of pizza dough spreading into a disk as it is spun in the air, and thus the planets forming as bits of dough get displaced further out.
That requires an influx of angular inertia from the pizza guy, an influx that doesn't exist in the forming solar system. A large rotating cloud contracts (does not spread out) into a disk, losing mechanical energy (not gaining it) all the way to the heating of the places where it is collecting.

People will go to amazing lengths to avoid this conclusion, including the 'Everett speculation'. — Wayfarer

Well I'm one of those, since the interpretation does away with so many problematic things only at the cost of a thing-in-itself corresponding to 'me', which isn't much of a price to a non-religious sort that I am. That which I perceive as 'me', the thing for whose benefit I draw breath, seems to be just a carrot on a stick leading me on fit paths. Yea, I still follow the carrot, but at least I'm not suckered into buying an insurance policy for it.

With no one experiencing it, there is still something real out there, but it unknown what it is. — Rich

I went on a different direction, not basing existence on epistemology. The existing thing corresponding to "Jupiter" seems to be the naive realist thing that is the object of language, whether I know what it really is or not. But the thing-in-itself that we suppose corresponds to that name seems in fact not to have the sort of observer-independent existence we imagine. There is not still something real out there.
This is a strange turn in views that I have been recently exploring. I by no means assert any of this, and it probably runs into conflicts at some point, meaning it needs work.

The fact that you call it 'a cup' and that it performs that function is dependent on human designation, perception and convention. If you were a micro-organism-sized intelligence that lived in the water in the cup, it might be 'the ocean', as far as you're concerned. You imagine the cup 'being there', in the cupboard, when nobody's around looking at it, but that's still an image, an imaginary act, constituted by your human mind, which classifies objects according to their shape, function and so on and situates them in the imaginary 'empty space'. There is no intrinsic cup apart from that. — Wayfarer

I hate to butt in on a comment not directed at me, especially a comment not directly related to the reincarnation subject, but this one hit me. I, pretty much a realist-monist of sorts, agree with this assessment. Sans language that seems to render common definition that this semi-persistent state of not-really-particles makes up what we both agree is a cup, the designation has no existence.
It is idealism to a point, but one that cannot lead to solipsism.

This seems not a QM thing where consciousness is collapsing the complex wave function into cup. But a few million years ago, there was no Jupiter, there was not even particles. That Jupiter only exists now.
Somebody posted in my one thread that to exist is to be named. I brushed that off at first, but it has been working its way in all this time.

So you don't believe that the ecliptic disk was formed via conservation of angular momentum, when the initial cloud contracted? — Michael Ossipoff

Trying to figure out how you got that from what I posted.

On another subject, I don't dispute your definition of the Sun, as beginning with fusion-ignition. Definitions can be different, but not wrong. It isn't something to argue about, wouldn't you say?

I acknowledged your altered definition and still find the planets not coming from it. I called the Sun a central condensing pre-star. Not ignited, but it was what has now become our sun.

The formation of the ecliptic disk wasn't a throwinlg-out of planets. The planets later formed from the ecliptic disk.

You said the sun was "the already compactly-formed sphere that's already emitting some radiation", not the ecliptic disk. If you're equating the entire disk to the sun, then any landfill is already garbage being dumped into the sun, so the probe is no different than that.

So you're defining 'the Sun" based on fusion-reactions, rather than from the already compactly-formed sphere that's already emitting some radiation (from compression-heating).

Fine. That's an individual matter of definition. — Michael Ossipoff

If there is a point of the beginning of the what is the sun, it would seem to be the moment of ignition. The change is quite abrupt and it isn't a star if it doesn't happen. The opinion of apparently all the other posters on this thread is that the material that makes up the vast bulk of the planets was never part of this central condensing pre-star. If the central mass had enough angular momentum to throw out the planets, our solar-system would likely have sported a binary star as so many of them do.
The star does eject material, but that only goes into orbit if deflected by something already in orbit. Otherwise it escapes, or falls back into the sun.

NoAxioms didn't say that. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, I did say that.

Nobody here has so far agree that the planets formed from the sun. The disk is not the sun. It didn't emit from the star. That's our opinion, and you differ. OK, we get that.
In actuality the disk formed from the collective center of gravity of the cloud, and the critical mass of the central object that later ignited into the sun is not required for disk and planets to form.

The Sun was formed from a cloud of material.

Then the planets were later formed from the Sun.

Yes, the Sun was was the immediate origin of the planets. They were formed directly from the Sun's material.

The sun does emit material, so I cannot deny that there is some sun material in each planet, but since most of that blows away (especially on the inner planets), I think I can say that nobody is going to agree with your assertion that they were formed directly from the sun's material. The sun does not emit iron and oxygen for instance, and Earth is more of those than anything else.

Any newborns--extremely gifted newborns with the ability to read--reading this? What the authorities are saying is that you, simply by being born, are a threat to other people's safety, a threat to the stability of the state, and a threat to those who are in power. How's that for the dignity that you supposedly have by being born human? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The identity of the baby is so the government can give benefits. No identity, no benefits. The kid would die in a day or two without some form of identity. The larger numeric one from the government is for government benefits instead of interpersonal benefits.