If you wanna know, murder rates may not give the complete picture because it counts only completed killings i.e. there's a dead person, a body count.

Why not look at attempted murder rates? I'm sure all countries are more or less the same on that score. Access to lethal weapons means the fatality rates are higher, exactly what the data in the OP reflects. — Agent Smith

Good idea. I might struggle to find the figures, but worth a go.

There are those within my state and my county that have had drastically different experiences though. — Hanover

I'd say - the stats for Atlanta show 20.2 murders per 100,000 people (more than 12 times that of London). Guns were used in 82% of the homicides.

And it's not that I live in walled community or among the rich and famous. I live in middle class suburban Atlanta. — Hanover

Not schmoozing with The Real Housewives of Atlanta? Even we on the other side of the Atlantic watch them. :lol:

Believe it or not, but I live in the US among many gun fanatics, and I have never known a person who was murdered. We can divide cultures and societies in many arbitrary ways. One of those are by political systems, which the OP does, by asking why things are the way they are in the US as a whole. If you divided it in other ways , as in those who I associate with, the murder rate is zero.

The question then is why is the murder rate where I reside is as low as Sweden's, but not too far from me, it's very different, despite the fact that we live in the same country under the same laws? I'm not the first to point out that there are two Americas, but it's probably like 5 or 6 or maybe more.

Don't misread anything I've said here to be some fucked up comment about violence being caused by race. It's not. My comments relate to class and the causes of the classist system. — Hanover

The gun laws are the same, or essentially the same, throughout the United States?

San Diego, El Paso, San Jose, Austin, Virginia Beach, and New York City don't have a significantly higher murder rate than London (the highest of these, New York, has almost double that of London). But Detroit, and New Orleans, have about 22 times the murder rate of London, and Baltimore 31. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I assume Detroit, New Orleans and Baltimore are some of the poorest areas in the United States?

If so, I am tempted to say the stark difference in murder rate is largely due to wealth inequality.

Add to gun "laws." Culture, ignorance, failure of education, and racism. — tim wood

You don't think the difference in distribution of wealth significantly contributes to the difference in murder rates?

Is the murder rate in Canada still much lower than the US? I remember it was from that Michael Moore documentary back in the day (Bowling for Columbine). Admittedly, I don't know how many guns per head of the population comparing the two. — RolandTyme

The murder rate in Canada is only slightly higher than in the United Kingdom.

Also, is the murder rate uniform over the US? It's a humongous country. — RolandTyme

San Diego, El Paso, San Jose, Austin, Virginia Beach, and New York City don't have a significantly higher murder rate than London (the highest of these, New York, has almost double that of London). But Detroit, and New Orleans, have about 22 times the murder rate of London, and Baltimore 31.

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-murder-rate_uk_5d05f0b8e4b0dc17ef0b1f25

The science is in favour of a 'flow' state.

This is where we take on a challenge that is just about achievable. Conversely, if the challenge is too difficult we experience anxiety, and too easy we experience boredom.

The statistics are intriguing.

I don't think God/gods should be worshipped. They should be treated with respect though. — Agent Smith

A lot of the worshipping for both god/s and the Queen is tradition.

An all-powerful god would know how much we love them without the need for worship, and an all-loving god would love us either way.

What is worship? — Agent Smith

To honour or show reverence for (usually god/s).

Support for the Queen is consistently above 80%. Much more than the percentage of us Brits that believe in let alone worship god/s.

A good question. Makes us rethink what worship actually is and what purpose it serves? Clearly, since there's a difference between an absolute God and a relative God, worship may need to be recalibrated accordingly, from fanatical devotion to a more measured form. — Agent Smith

The Queen of England is treated as a demigod - riches, rituals, songs, and even the final say on whether bills become law. Surely advanced humans or ET could be worshiped in at least the same way.

Should we worship them? And when we are visited by advanced ET?

I mean as an explanation for where everything came from (such as Lawrence Krauss proposes) — Down The Rabbit Hole

In Wikipedia he is quoted as saying, "Turtles all the way down" Has he gone beyond this view? I haven't read anything by him. — jgill

He says the question of whether there were other universes is "irrelevant". He appears to propose quantum fields as the default state of reality.

Krauss uses QFT and it's implications for the vacuum. He doesn't explain where the singularity itself, with virtual particles only comes from — Cornwell1

No, it is proposed as a simple default state. This is different from an infinite series of big bangs, as proposed by Roger Penrose?

But it explains the mechanism of subsequent big bangs. There is no physical explanation where the infinity came from. It has been created by an extra mundane power, how else got it there. The power lives outside the domain of space and time, so even when spacetime is eternal and infinite that won't be proof of no divine beings. — Cornwell1

Aren't you just pushing the question back, to where the "extra mundane power" came from? If your answer is that it has always existed, surely it would be simpler to just say the series of big bangs have always existed?

You don't think something more basic such as a quantum field is a better explanation? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Quantum fields are exactly the reason I think this will happen. — Cornwell1

I mean as an explanation for where everything came from (such as Lawrence Krauss proposes).

The view you expressed of an infinite series of big bangs has no explanation for where it came from. In fact it never came from anywhere, it has always existed.

I usually enjoy a good polling, but this question is a choice between logical absurdities, with no good reason to favour one absurdity over another. I haven't voted yet, so I don't know what the numbers are, but my guess would be about two thirds - something from nothing, and one third, an infinite past. Neither of them make any sense. I don't know what would. The universe is weird. It's like a prison with no bars; we exist, suspended between the infinitely big and the infinitely small, with no 'edge of the map' from which we might imply the nature of existence. It's bizzarre. Forced to choose, on the basis of cosmic expansion, I'll say something from nothing. The Big Bang Theory, but that's not to say I find it satisfying. — karl stone

You're not impressed by the above arguments about an infinite series of big bangs?

It does seem absurd that something has existed forever with no explanation.

Yes. One after another. For example, if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity, that a new one originates behind us. And then again for that one, etc. — Cornwell1

You don't think something more basic such as a quantum field is a better explanation?

The alternative is repeated starts from zero. — Cornwell1

You mean like an infinite series of big bangs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeahffPMR5c

The alternative is something coming from literally nothing.

Yes, ostensibly a clock that has always been ticking cannot exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't get it. Why can't it exist? What is it in its supposed eternal ticking that makes it impossible to exist? — god must be atheist

Like Al-Ghazali's orbiting planets, it's not necessarily logically impossible, just counter-intuitive.

An infinitely ticking stopwatch is a better example - any number it shows would contradict its infinite ticks. Now that's logically impossible?

You’re right, but does the contradiction make impossible an infinite past or just an infinite stopwatch? I’d say the latter, since a stopwatch doesn’t run in cycles so its count necessarily has a beginning. — AJJ

I don't know if you've read the book, but this was the response I gave when asked about Oppy's Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity:

"A lot of the classical actual infinity thought experiments he has answers for, but for those he doesn't he asserts that just because certain actual infinity thought experiments are impossible, it doesn't mean actual infinities are impossible. He points out that even finite scenarios can be impossible".

I think you are right that although the conclusions are counter-intuitive, they are not necessarily impossible.

Something from literally nothing is counter-intuitive. Necessarily Impossible?

It’s necessarily impossible to say what time it would show, precisely because it’s an infinite clock. If you saw it and it read 12 o’clock then the explanation for that would be that it said 11 o’clock an hour ago and 10 o’clock the hour before that, and there would be nothing more to it. — AJJ

How about an infinity ticking stopwatch? Any number it shows would contradict its infinite ticks?

Having always existed means it didn't start to exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But still... The eternal can be created from outside of spacetime. — Raymond

I didn't say always in time. If it was created, it began to exist.

I'm not sure where your preoccupation with number of periods of planets? If you increase the number of the revolutions of one planet in particular, what's the problem? — Raymond

I'm not obsessed with orbiting planets y'know :lol: It's Al-Ghazali's example, that I've brought up a couple of times in these 5 pages and responded to criticisms of. It's unintuitive (at the least) that despite speeding the orbits of one planet over the other, it never actually orbits more. Although as @AJJ has said it's not clear that it's impossible.

Ah! It's here that you make a wrong assumption. There is no clock tic-tac-ing eternally. Only an infinite sequence of clocks taking of from perfect clock states. The universe is eternal but there is an infinite succession of beginnings in time. An infinite eternal universe isn't a physical possibility. If there were no point zero in time life could not develop. It would be a time and spaceless universe devoid of matter. I.e. a nothing.
The steady state universe enjoyed some popularity but was not tenable. — Raymond

The ticking of a clock is an example to test an infinite chain of events (in this case the infinite ticks). Each of the "infinite succession of beginnings in time" you refer to is like the tick of a clock.

I’m not sure I’d call it absurd, because what you’re identifying again is simply that there isn’t a total to be added to, which given an infinite past is necessarily so. We can still say that one planet does so many orbits per year and the other does this many; in this light the lack of a grand total for each seems something to be accepted as necessary and unimportant. — AJJ

Okay, so you're saying Al-Ghazali's orbiting planets are unintuitive but not logically impossible?

Sorry to move the goalposts, but what if instead of the orbiting planets it's an infinitely ticking clock. What time would it show?

Speed one up all you like. I’m saying talk of them doing the same number of orbits assumes finitude - if they’ve been going forever there is no total number of orbits to compare. The most you could say is that, given any stretch of time within that infinity, one planet has invariably done more orbits that the other. — AJJ

I understand what you are saying; a total number of orbits and infinite orbits are incompatible. It still seems absurd that any extra orbits we suddenly add to one planet over the other actually adds nothing.

Like Bayesian inference? Updating the probabilities for a hypothesis as new data comes in.

Talk of totals assumes finitude - to say the planets total the same number of orbits you need finite numbers to compare; instead it seems right to say that one planet has always done more orbits than the other; it’s only if they were finite that at any point they could have done the same number. — AJJ

For punch I added "even if you suddenly sped the faster planet up further". It is absurd that both planets would have done the same amount of orbits?

Dear rabbit, I have personally written a blog or two and collected and published data on the topic (non-being) of nothing. You may also find L.M. Krauss "A Universe from Nothing" an intriguing read.

I have not learned much from reading three pages of comments on here. I will tell you my vote is that time is perpetual and infinite in both directions.

Our newest Telescope, Webb's, will reveal more about the nature of time and the beginning of our universe (cosmology). . — Josh Alfred

The trouble is, we don't have any experience with "nothing" in the literal sense. What evidence have we got to say things don't just pop into existence out of nothing?

The title of the book should be "A Universe from Quantum Fields". I think he said in interviews that "A Universe from Nothing" was a sales trick.

Create means "bring something into existence". This cannot be done for something that has always existed. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why not? — Raymond

Having always existed means it didn't start to exist.

Regarding the infinite past, I heard a good riddle: if a clock has existed forever, what time would it show this moment?

This is a good one.

It would need to show some time, undoubtedly. But how do we know how it was set, if it was never set? Remember, it had no beginning, no manufacturing date. It has existed for ever. It shows some time, as it is a regular clock. What is the time it shows?

Yeeee-haaaw! — god must be atheist

Yes, ostensibly a clock that has always been ticking cannot exist. How about the infinite number of red books and infinite number of black books, that when added together total the same amount of books as just the red books. And the planets orbiting the sun at different speeds, but making the same amount of orbits, even if you suddenly sped the faster one up further.

The answer to my poll question is not as obvious as some people think it is?

Create means "bring something into existence". This cannot be done for something that has always existed.

The past and future could be an infinite cycle if big bangs and big crushes for all we know. — Olivier5

It can be bang after bang too. Without crunch, but more tasty! — Raymond

Although this infinite series of bangs runs into the paradoxes, it might be the most plausible option. Sir Roger Penrose seems to think so.

Maybe an interest question too: does an infinite universe exclude creation out of nothing? In other words, can an infinite universe be created by God? — Raymond

I don't see a problem with God creating a universe infinite in size. However, if the universe has existed infinitely long, it had no beginning, and so could not have been created.

"Seems" is a weasel word for perception. Which is dependent on several factors that are ultimately irrelevant to higher understanding. A homeless man high on PCP who runs into freeway traffic thought that avenue "seemed good" at the time. — Outlander

I chose the word "seems" as I wanted the poll to be inviting to everyone, not just those with a reasoned answer (if such a thing exists for this question). It is interesting to see what people perceive to be the most absurd, and as you can see from the results, opinion is split.

You feel the need to quantify "nothing" as in no thing with "literally" perhaps for our benefit sure, as if we are unable to grasp the concept. Perhaps you are projecting your inabilities and shortcomings on us? Granted, it is a mind bending concept for most so moving on. — Outlander

Some people's (most notably Lawrence Krauss's), use of "nothing" excludes quantum fields. I said "literally nothing" and "no-thing", to help express that I am including every-thing, including quantum fields, in my use of the word.

Obviously the "something" was not actually from nothing — Outlander

It's not obvious - around 50% of respondents find "something from literally nothing" the most plausible.

1) You are assuming that some thing(s) "made up the past", an assumption which a) I don't understand as phrased -- what do you mean? -- and b) that may be unwarranted.

2) An infinite past is not anymore paradoxical than an infinite anything (space, set, whatever). Think of it mathematically. What is most paradoxical: a never-ending series of natural numbers from zero to, well, infinity, or a finite series of natural numbers stopping at some maximum value or another?

WTF happens if you take that maximum and add 1 to it?

Similarly, what happens one second after the end of time?

The human mind is not so much seeking the infinite as dreading it, I think. There is a vertigo of the infinite in us. But on the other hand, our mind -- mine in any case -- can not possibly square with the idea of a hard end to time and space. Our natural sense of time and space is open-ended. — Olivier5

If there is not literal nothingness, there is some thing(s). As @PoeticUniverse has said in other threads, the thing(s) making up the infinite past would most likely have been in motion for infinity, in order for anything to have developed - otherwise we have development from infinite stillness, which is not much better than something from literally nothing.

Yes, I don't know of a solution for actual infinities. A never ending future is reasonable though - it keeps going, never actually reaching infinity.

What if infinity in time is built up from infinite ùniverses following up each other in series, each with a beginning of time? — Raymond

This infinite series of universes would still have no reason or explanation for its existence.

As this is an infinite series of events, it still runs into the paradoxes. I don't think it matters whether or not thing(s) are "timeless", a series of events must still have a beginning to avoid the paradoxes.

People are actually voting that an infinite past is more "far-fetched" than something coming from nothing?

Jesus... — Xtrix

I was surprised by the results too. And the comments aren't reflecting these results.

Why do you find that absurd, pray tell? What I (and most poll respondents) find counter intuitive is rather the idea of a possible begining and a possible end of time. The idea of an infinite past and future is perfectly fine. — Olivier5

(1) The thing(s) making up the infinite past would have no reason or explanation for their existence (2) An infinite past is paradoxical. E.g. Planets that orbit the sun at different speeds would at every moment have made the same amount of orbits. Despite us actually observing the faster one adding more orbits than the other. (Same principle for whatever came before the sun and planets).

Do you think the nothing has creation power? — Raymond

No I don't. It seems to me that something having an infinite past is the least absurd option.

Nonetheless, you must agree that something just existing, with no reason or purpose, forever into the past, is very absurd. And then there are all the paradoxes of an actual infinity.

Nothing? literally nothing? You really do not know what you're talking about. Or at least if you did, you would understand that the request to define your term was serious. Why don't you give it a try? What do you mean, or what do you understand, by the "nothing" you're referring to? — tim wood

I'll have you know, I do know what I'm talking about on the subject of nothing :joke:

I wasn't sure if you was serious. When responding, I did add the hyphen in no-thingness to give an indication of what I mean.

Nothing is the absence of anything. — Raymond

Contrary to the results of my poll so far, something from literally nothing intuitively seems more far-fetched to me. However, as @Gnomon pointed out, non-existence is counter-intuitive, and intuition tends to be prejudiced by personal experience. Other than our intuition, what's to say actual no-thingness didn't give rise to everything else? Bear in mind, something having an infinite past is absurd too.

I think it was Bertrand Russell that said something to the effect that even dreams/illusions are real.

You seem to be referring to the idea expressed by Donald Hoffman that we are in reality, but, we experience it through an illusionary lens, to aid gene survival.

What various definitions of consciousness are there? Are all animals conscious? Trees? Cities? The moon? — TiredThinker

There is only evidence that brains experience reality.