If C is always the same that implies measurements are accurate and that there is absolute points in space (it least in most if not all senses or "levels")
— christian2017
I do not see how that follows at all. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of whether or how we measure it, suggesting that continuous motion through spacetime is a more fundamental reality than discrete positions in space or discrete instants in time treated separately. A meter is an arbitrary unit of length, and a second is an arbitrary unit of duration. A material object traveling at half the speed of light relative to an observer would be measured by that observer as shorter than the same thing not moving at all relative to that same observer. The uncertainty principle is that it is impossible even in principle to measure both the velocity and position of a particle to the same precision at the same designated instant. — aletheist

Doesn't speed/velocity require a standard unit of distance measurement over a standard unit of time? I understand that if two clocks are hurdling through space at different velocities the faster moving clock will tell time slower than the slower moving clock.

I actually never heard Stephen Hawkings nor my Physics professor in college say there is not absolute points in space. Do you have an article on this?

Its a common cliche. "Do you believe in aliens?". Look up the common cliche on the internet.

Do you believe in cheese?

yes

that person believes that cheese exist.

Do you believe in aliens?

yes

that person believes in that aliens exist.

Once again its a common cliche.

I actually stated this earlier.

Many people have "rebuked" you
— christian2017

Rebuking is for dummies.

As long as I am rot refuted, they can show how dumb they are all they like.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

ok.

It gets into absolute time because of the eternity. Consider the Islamic kalam argument against eternal time. If you think there has to be eternal time, you again think of absolute time. Only nothingness was before the first motion, not a frozen eternity — Gregory

Absolute time implies that time is not relative. What else are you saying that it implies? What would i search for (be a little more specific) for "the islamic kalam argument against eternal time". Are you saying that is what i should look up?

If there is heat/movement (if there is movement there is heat and if there is heat there is movement) it is not a frozen eternity. Have you ever read "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings. Did you read a book or watch a video?

There are difficulties with eternal time because it brings in absolute time. How could an eternity lead to now and there be a now? That's a paradox. What I came up with is that there is no eternal time, but that we start counting time from the big bang on. First motion, latter motions. — Gregory

Eternal time doesn't bring in absolute time. Einstein said that time is the iteration of events or the iteration of the movement of particles and among other things he said that a clock on space ship (moving fast) will tell time slower than a clock sitting your bedroom. This was proven with tests flying over the chesapeake bay.

You can have forever heat (heat doesn't have a beginning) and still keep with special relativity.

The rest of what you just said is contigent on the initial statements you made so we can go from there.

So after reading a lot about Hawking's "no boundary hypothesis", I realized that people are still asking what came "before time". Hawking has time going back 1/2 of a second, 1/3, 1/4 like that going to infinity but with no limit ("boundary") towards the end. It's very weird. Hawking's idea is that time get's smaller and smaller and becomes indistinguishable from space. It just goes back a distance, a fraction of that,
another fraction and onward to infinity as it shrinks, but space itself is not the limit. He keeps space and time separate. Time just becomes a haze as the equations look more and more like space with every fraction. Time and space infinitely become indistinguishable near the big bang. Hawking's imaginary time is sort of a hybrid of time and space. Keep in mind that gravity can't exist without time because it's a curve in Spacetime.

When Hawking says we can go to the South Pole thinking, at first, that we can go further, I think he realizes you would have to look up in order to go further. The sky is the no-boundary "nothing" in that analogy and the earth is the universe

I think the theory is kinda a form of eternal universe. Space is just space, but time keeps acting more and more like space and nothingness (absolutely no thing) is the boundary. It's fuzzier than just saying there has been an eternity of days in the past. People are still asking though, what is BEHIND this infinite past with nothingness as the boundary? One guy I read suggested simply that the laws of physics are most fundamental.

(Penrose and Carroll both have their theories about the start of the universe. Penrose said he disagreed with what Hawking said in his final book about this, and posits his own eternal universe which reminds me of an infinite slide with water eternally flowing down)

Finally, my guess is thatif you have two eternal principles of matter and no time, the principles eternally act on each other, outside time, and you would have the first motion of the big bang. Einstein said without motion there is no time. So I think that maybe, with a couple fundamental laws of physics in play (more fundamental even than gravity), movement and time can start and we can have a big bang. Having one eternal principle is harder to conceive as gushing out the universe, unless it's some spiritual principle. But if we stick to materialism, two essential laws of matter might be necessary.

What do you think? — Gregory

If a spirit moved the universe to allow movement? Why do we say a spirit doesn't itself move? To say the universe always moved isn't ridicoulous. Heat = movement. If he feels hot or cold today we know there is currently movement, some movement or there was movement at one time.

i looked at the OP again.

Something can't me moved unless acted on by an outside force. Gravity always existed. Why is it so ridicoulous that there was always movement in the universe (even if its on the microscopic or sub atomic scale). Turtles on top of turtles isn't completely ridicoulous. Why do we assume there is no movement inside a black hole or when the universe was really small. Heat = movement.

Does anyone have any other incites or what they like the most about this story.
— christian2017

I feel confident that when the stories were first told they were not fiction, but when everyone who remembered the events died, the stories became fiction.

I believe Eden was in the area of Iran where geologists believe they have found the 4 rivers. The geologists also see evidence of a flood and a long draught. So we are told a goddess became angry when the river (water god) ate her plants (flood), and she cursed the river to death(drought). The river almost died (dried up) and a fox convinced the goddess to let the river live. Then the river asked the goddess to provide help so it could stay in banks and she made a man and woman of mud and breathed life into them. I don't believe we are made of mud, but this is a logical explanation of our purpose, to keep the river in its banks.

"The Sumerian word for rib is ti, and the rib-healing goddess came to be called Ninti, which translates both as "the lady of the rib" and "the lady who makes live". This play on words does not work in Hebrew, but the rib did enter the Garden of Eden story in the form of Eve, the mother of the human race- "the lady who makes live". Interestingly the words Eden and Adam also appear in cuneiform. Eden means "uncultivated plain"; Adam, "settlement on the plain"."Time-Life Lost Civilizations Sumer: Cities of Eden".

That is telling us people who carried this story of a flood and a draught returned to the valley when things returned to normal and they returned to cultivation the plane and this time they attempted to control the flow of the river. — Athena

Yeah i've heard some of this but not all of it. Thank you for adding that.

brb

i'll have to reread the OP and read further about finite temporal universe. If the universe was forever in motion then it has no beginning. Stephen Hawkings argued that turtles on top of infinite turtles isn't completely ridicoulous.

"Do you believe in aliens?" is equivalent to "Do you believe in cheese?". If you believe in cheese and or aliens than you either believe that aliens or cheese exist. How could i have worded that better?

to clarify the original statement, the combination of it being the oldest work of fiction/mythology and that it pertains to eternal damnation. Have you read the epic?

your going to have to go more in depth than that to find out more about my personal story. If you would like you send me a private message with more detail.

Many people have "rebuked" you on much of your crap (pertaining to your last post to me)

Please don't quote the Hitler/Holocaust era every time your trying to make a strong point.

So after reading a lot about Hawking's "no boundary hypothesis", I realized that people are still asking what came "before time". Hawking has time going back 1/2 of a second, 1/3, 1/4 like that going to infinity but with no limit ("boundary") towards the end. It's very weird. Hawking's idea is that time get's smaller and smaller and becomes indistinguishable from space. It just goes back a distance, a fraction of that,
another fraction and onward to infinity as it shrinks, but space itself is not the limit. He keeps space and time separate. Time just becomes a haze as the equations look more and more like space with every fraction. Time and space infinitely become indistinguishable near the big bang. Hawking's imaginary time is sort of a hybrid of time and space. Keep in mind that gravity can't exist without time because it's a curve in Spacetime.

When Hawking says we can go to the South Pole thinking, at first, that we can go further, I think he realizes you would have to look up in order to go further. The sky is the no-boundary "nothing" in that analogy and the earth is the universe

I think the theory is kinda a form of eternal universe. Space is just space, but time keeps acting more and more like space and nothingness (absolutely no thing) is the boundary. It's fuzzier than just saying there has been an eternity of days in the past. People are still asking though, what is BEHIND this infinite past with nothingness as the boundary? One guy I read suggested simply that the laws of physics are most fundamental.

(Penrose and Carroll both have their theories about the start of the universe. Penrose said he disagreed with what Hawking said in his final book about this, and posits his own eternal universe which reminds me of an infinite slide with water eternally flowing down)

Finally, my guess is thatif you have two eternal principles of matter and no time, the principles eternally act on each other, outside time, and you would have the first motion of the big bang. Einstein said without motion there is no time. So I think that maybe, with a couple fundamental laws of physics in play (more fundamental even than gravity), movement and time can start and we can have a big bang. Having one eternal principle is harder to conceive as gushing out the universe, unless it's some spiritual principle. But if we stick to materialism, two essential laws of matter might be necessary.

What do you think? — Gregory

Considering something in motion stays in motion and something won't start moving unless a force is acted on it and gravity is always at play (gravity applies force continuously. Perhaps the universe has always been in motion and space/time has always been curved.

The universe doesn't change in the sense that it didn't begin, and thus it continues forever at the same time.
Gravity has always cause motion and gravity has always existed.

I changed this to the universe didn't change in that sense that it didn't begin....

in short, your answer could (could) be the best answer.

I am not a philosopher, but a military historian interested in how the trolley problem applies to military history.

The trolley problem is not an abstract thought experiment, but a fair approximation to the kind of decisions that are made daily by military commanders and then repeated with the surviving players. Who gets picked to carry out a dangerous task? Is it always the person most likely to succeed or do is there a moral element to sharing the risks? There is more to this than morality, but there seems to be a moral component to decisions than might be approached rationally on a purely utilitarian level. E.g. there are taboos among most armed forces about suicide tactics or targeting a mixture of friend and foe.

I am particularly interested in the extent to which morality and, or psychology of the trolley problem may help to understand historic events where a decision to avoid the risks of friendly fire (killing the one) resulted in heavy casualties from enemy fire (killing the five). I have a hypothesis that this may explain what were in retrospect avoidable high casualties on the Somme in the First World War and on D Day and at Arnhem in the Second.

Are there any articles or philosophers who cover this topic? — Frank Baldwin

Most famous (famous) philosophers tend to be emo assholes so my guess is no. You are looking for a needle in a haystack going on a site like this to find exactly (exactly) what you are looking for. You should write a book on the subject because there probably aren't any notable (notable) "philosophers" that cover this topic.

Thank you for your service Sir. The modern military kills people's psyches and then they live in cardboard boxes or worse. I could not have made it in the modern military.

Isn't the trolley problem solved by having special forces (Seals, Delta force etc....). Pay their families well after they die. America has plenty of depressed people.

Have a wonderful day Sir!

I actually used to think very similar to you, so don't feel bad. #Shark_Fighter_Nation .

I had a profound thought lately, despite my new medications causing me to feel rather insane. So, if the idea sounds insane, which it doesn't, then please let me know.

I came to the conclusion, that conclusions deriving from altered value systems causes the most amount of grief. If a person is arriving at bad conclusions due to distorted value systems, then, the logical conclusion is to alter one's value system.

Now, one may wonder, what's the utility of altering one's value system despite the above? The utility of altering one's value system in such cases as dysfunctional relationships or sinking marriages is to be found in the newfound sense of knowledge about one's "about" beliefs. The idea is rather counter-intuitive in that a person would honestly believe that the most precious thing for themselves is to entertain the attainment of value, found in the cold logic encoded by the presented rationale of their attainment as presented by their motivation for reward derived from their value system.

Here's a world shaking belief instilled in a simple statement... Namely, how do baby giraffes survive in the Saharan savanna?


The point is to find a shortcut over the now widespread belief that happiness is the ultimate goal for all human beings. This distorted belief is inconsistent with human behavior. People do not flock to Scandinavian countries just because people are more happy there. And, in many cases, people who do travel to said places, often find themselves unhappy rather than happy.

I went about this problem in the following manner;

1. I want to feel satisfied and not happy. Happiness will follow latter.
2. I do this by appreciating things that were previously underappreciated, and hence discounted as things that I (thought) would bring about some sense of satisfaction in my life. This enhances my appreciation of what is valuable and worth indulging my efforts in appreciating if not procurement.
3. I continue to do this by discounting the things that were once perceived to bring about happiness in my life, such as money, prestige, recognition, or even grand ideas such as fame, glory, honor, or some-such.

4. What is left is to appreciate human traits such as persistence, gratitude, resilience, and even a small and strange belief, that depression, anxiety, and unhappiness have some semblance of truth telling in entertaining my notions of what constitutes what is desirable.

Hence, to be happy (if that's what all that matters in such an impoverished world), is the logical conclusion that some things are out of one's control are truly to be appreciated since they dictate the happenings of my life. — Shawn

Happiness or positive feelings are essentially the same things. Some use religion to try to reach that goal, and then there are a trillion other ways to attempt to get there. Being stoic is even a way to attempt to get there. Ofcourse the pursuit of happiness might only be an attempt to have it for 5 seconds or 5 minutes.

When i say happiness i mean positive feelings to keep this simple.

I would agree that flawed value system leads to bad results but all people like to be happy and/or have positive feelings as much as possible even if it is only on the individual level.

That last sentence just seems like common sense. If you offer a person a steak or a bug a piece of creamed corn or a Vegan a portabello mushroom, they will take it at some point in their life. Due to the nature of happiness and suffering, people's secondary, third or fourth or X goal (sometimes first) is always to be happy or have positive feelings. If you've never been happy before, this would be very hard for me to prove to you.

:)

you were vague so i'll be vague. I stole X dollars worth of stuff from a store with the intention of being caught. Cost me over 50k and a security clearance after some other stuff happened. the record was worse than anything time in prison would have entailed.

you should reconsider being my friend since we both believe in aliens. if God/Jesus is just an alien, who can blame him for allowing people to live their lives here on earth. If i'm wrong about the Bible how does that hurt you, i will just die and possibly be judged (based on what aspects or percentage of the bible is true). Once again Paul in the new testament wasn't 100% on his faith. i believe a short life in my case would be a blessing.

The main purpose of the Gilgamesh myth is to illustrate the weakness of man in the face of destiny. This is particularly presented by the vision of the underworld as presented by Enkidu from one of his dreams. Enkidu describes the underworld as a very dark place where the people are clad in feathers and feed on clay (Cunningham and Reich 7).

Advertising
We will write a custom Essay on Death and the afterlife in the Epic of Gilgamesh specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page

Learn More
By the time this dream appears in the story, the reader is already aware Enkidu is bound to die, but one reads on hoping that Enkidu would somehow find a loophole that would take him away from going to the underworld as predicted by the dream.

The epic of Gilgamesh does not make death less frightening in comparison to the overwhelming nature of life. The afterlife as described by Enkidu is just an unsettling existence that no human being would like to live. In actual sense, it makes death even scarier especially drawing from the words of Enkidu while on his demise bed. Enkidu tries to find a scapegoat by blaming the lady Shamhat for his own shortcomings in his pre-death premonition.

The main purpose of the Gilgamesh myth is to illustrate the weakness of man in the face of destiny. This is particularly presented by the vision of the underworld as presented by Enkidu from one of his dreams. Enkidu describes the underworld as a very dark place where the people are clad in feathers and feed on clay (Cunningham and Reich 7).

Advertising
We will write a custom Essay on Death and the afterlife in the Epic of Gilgamesh specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page

Learn More
By the time this dream appears in the story, the reader is already aware Enkidu is bound to die, but one reads on hoping that Enkidu would somehow find a loophole that would take him away from going to the underworld as predicted by the dream.

The epic of Gilgamesh does not make death less frightening in comparison to the overwhelming nature of life. The afterlife as described by Enkidu is just an unsettling existence that no human being would like to live. In actual sense, it makes death even scarier especially drawing from the words of Enkidu while on his demise bed. Enkidu tries to find a scapegoat by blaming the lady Shamhat for his own shortcomings in his pre-death premonition.

The main purpose of the Gilgamesh myth is to illustrate the weakness of man in the face of destiny. This is particularly presented by the vision of the underworld as presented by Enkidu from one of his dreams. Enkidu describes the underworld as a very dark place where the people are clad in feathers and feed on clay (Cunningham and Reich 7).

Advertising
We will write a custom Essay on Death and the afterlife in the Epic of Gilgamesh specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page

Learn More
By the time this dream appears in the story, the reader is already aware Enkidu is bound to die, but one reads on hoping that Enkidu would somehow find a loophole that would take him away from going to the underworld as predicted by the dream.

The epic of Gilgamesh does not make death less frightening in comparison to the overwhelming nature of life. The afterlife as described by Enkidu is just an unsettling existence that no human being would like to live. In actual sense, it makes death even scarier especially drawing from the words of Enkidu while on his demise bed. Enkidu tries to find a scapegoat by blaming the lady Shamhat for his own shortcomings in his pre-death premonition.

I read the translation and the description of each stone tablet it was written on. The afterlife is described in the translation i read. Its not just eternal "no feeling", its eternal hang in a cold cave upside down like a bat. I don't know what wikipedia says.

Now that we agree on something such as aliens we can be best friends now. Even though i do believe in a God, i have to admit all miracles/coincidences can be explained with alien technology. I'm still not giving up my christian faith. Hopefully i die before i give up my christian faith and then it will be a mute point.

Paul in the new testament wasn't 100% sure of his faith. I won't quote it because i don't want to evangelize.

Unless me and you want to go to jail for 80 years, doing a citizen arrest isn't the best option. But if 80 years in jail is something you can manage, whatever god or alien force out there might reward you greatly.

Yes the Roman Papacy really sucks.

Do you believe in aliens?
— christian2017

To think we are the only intelligent species in the universe, is betting against the odds. So yes, I think that there are intelligent life out there.

Would I spend the rest of my life in jail to end the damage the pedophile protectors and facilitators out there are doing?

Yes.

I risked 18 years in jail when I was 36ish for a lesser cause. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yeah i've done some shit too. Send me a private message if you would like. No wrong answer. I respect it if you would like to keep that sort of thing under wraps.

I think alot of supernatural stuff could possibly be explained with a naturalist alien phenonmenon or an atheist powerful alien phenonmennnnooonnonon (spelling). I tried so hard to spell that word right.

trope: a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression.

you could say imaginary or fiction but how is the stories mention of hell and/or damnation a trope?

"Considering this is the oldest known (known) recorded work of fiction, i find the fact that the story relating to eternal damnation as the chief theme to be fascinating." taken from the OP

Its the oldest and its about damnation, thats whats interesting.

Yes the Roman Papacy really sucks.

Do you believe in aliens?
— christian2017

Wow, what are you thinking? That seems to be an insult, not a reasonable argument? Is it your intention to dismiss reason and insult someone? It requires a lot of effort to stick reasoning and I am sure you do want to do better. — Athena

What? Did you read the whole conversation. Scroll up and see what the bishop says about the Roman Papacy, and then if you still feel like it get back to me.

I would see the pope and half his pedophile protecting bishops in jail if I had the power.

I would see all governments fly right and bring those bastards to justice.

Bullets are too good for them and collectively are all contributing to pedophilia.

Shame on us all. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Unless me and you want to go to jail for 80 years, doing a citizen arrest isn't the best option. But if 80 years in jail is something you can manage, whatever god or alien force out there might reward you greatly.

Yes the Roman Papacy really sucks.

Do you believe in aliens?

If I curse a pedophile protecting pope, or a death camp promoter and accomplish, does it matter which one of the many I name when speaking in general terms?

We are in a chat room. Not a court of law.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

good point the roman papacy does suck.

Nearly one and a half century ago, Nietzsche noticed the decline of old values. He claim 'god is dead', and he believe that we must find new values in order to survive nihilism. However, more than one century has passed, and few satisfying new values are established. Many of us choose to go back to those old religions, not because they are convinced, but because they have no other choice. Nihilism is growing, and it looks unstoppable.
A major reason for this is that our scholars have surrendered to nihilism. Although they should have fought against nihilism by renewing and protecting old values or establishing new ones, they are busy deconstructing old values, which makes nihilism even stronger. Perhaps they don't have the courage and wisdom to fight nihilism, so they are raising while flag. Perhaps deconstructing old values sounds safer, more political correct, and provides more money and fame to them. We should not rely on scholars anymore. Free thinkers should stand up and establish their own values. By 'free thinkers', I'm not talking about those madman and political activists who think to prove they are right, but those who really want to achieve internal well-being and make sense of their lives.
Am I right? Is it true that most scholars are busy destroying values instead of protecting or creating values? Are they responsible for the spread of nihilism? — Rystiya

Correct!

We all by the age of 5 know some truth. 1 + 1 =2 . The definition of 4 is 3 + 1. Some basic truths are just intuitive. All complex truths are based on simple truths.

Self-love is a spectrum that can be hard to nail down and quantify.
— christian2017

No need to quantify a qualifier. — Shawn

Everything can be quantified including personalities. When people argue using definition based arguments or on the other hand over semantics, they are in some sense using mathematics. We quantify qualifiers all day without even knowing it (a lack of exact precision in most cases).

There are one to one (a type of linear), linear, exponential, inverse exponential and other types of graphs that can link any two ideas or words or creatures. Everything can be quantified. David was told not to do a census on Israel but he did it anyway.

People don't like to suffer and prefer to be happy. Self-love is a spectrum that can be hard to nail down and quantify. If you are not completely right you are atleast some what right.

Infinity is a principle that arises while reasoning from first principles, such as in mathematics, but not while experimental testing, such as in science. Furthermore, the models for number theory and set theory are never the physical universe. These models are collections of formal language strings. They are 100% abstract only.

Last but not least, you would not be able to prove anything about infinity in the physical universe, because you cannot prove anything at all about the physical universe. We do not have a copy of the Theory of Everything of which the physical universe is a model. Hence, there is no syntactic entailment ("proof") from theoretical axioms possible about the physical universe. — alcontali

Well put.

You called me a drunkard earlier. Were both wrong doers so i called you the other name for wrong doer (sinner).

regards,

not DL (whatever dl means assuming its a name)

Why do you say abortion isn't murder?
— christian2017

Check the dictionary definitions of both terms and stop misusing them.

Regards — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Abortion is murder you sinner. I'm also a sinner. You check the definitions. Life is complex and sometimes we have to think slightly abstract (slightly abstract).