Why you want to measure gods?
— Hillary

I don't know. This is what I should ask you: why do you want to measure gods? — javi2541997

I don't.

Actual existent is not the same as measurable. — Hillary

Why not? Measure is inside the characteristics of "Actual existent"

. If you want proof that bad, you can open your hart to them. And let them in. At least, the knowledge that they exist. Or you can look in quantum mechanical experiments. — Hillary

Sorry but I do not understand this.

Hidden variables, a valid theory of QM, offer a means for gods to interact. But the effect is subtle. I saw them, the gods, busy in a dream. As if they told me their story.

I think you have very good arguments and a well refutation, but sadly, you end up defending God not matter the context or circumstances and that's weak

I think you have very good arguments and a well refutation, but sadly, you end up defending God not matter the context or circumstances and that's weak — javi2541997

I think it's weak to deny them (and there are zillions!) if you have seen them and they spoke to you.

I never seen them and neither I want to. Pessimism and nihilistic context is more comfortable

Pessimism and nihilistic context is more comfortable — javi2541997

Dear mother of god... ........



:lol:

A post of serious interest as a pleasant interlude in the knucklehead tennis match taking up most of this thread. Thanks for that.

knucklehead tennis match taking up most of this thread.

Didn't you like our excited debate? :yum:

So, the question is, what could 'existence is a perfection mean'? Especially consider the manifestly imperfect nature of existence as we know it. — Wayfarer

The temporally material universe (but eternally repeating) and life in it is a perfect copy of non-material eternal heaven. The creation of the divine matter, necessary to let life evolve, can be seen as a perfect intelligence of the gids, of which one is present in heaven for all forms of universal life. Even in-vitro people have their divine counterpart. So getting to know life is getting to know gods.

A post of serious interest as a pleasant interlude in the knucklehead tennis match taking up most of this thread. Thanks for that. — T Clark

The lost generation. Gods have left the building!

Leaving aside the inane suggestion regarding extraterrestrials, there is an interesting point about Anselm's ontological argument that I feel is often not noticed or made explicit. — Wayfarer

Why is that an inane suggestion? It's far more probable they walk around than that we're alone.

'Quantum gravity' rings any bells?

Quantum gravity' rings any bells? — 180 Proof

Too many But I got over it. The problem lies in the connection of gravitons with space. String theory says that the vacuum is a condensate of closed strings, but obviously the background independence isn't achieved by this. So forget quantum gravity and look for a more modern solution. And even if it were accurate, where does the non-emergent predecessor of emergent thermodynamic time and 3d space come from?

How? Tunneling from a false vacuum ... Besides, "String Theory" isn't the only game in town, so (another) false dichotomy on your part. And "creationism" (which you've suggested) isn't either "more modern" or a "solution". :roll:

Tunneling from a false vacuum — 180 Proof

False vacua are woowoo ad hoc. The question is where the quantum vacuum came from. There is the game with the central wormhole. If you let it have a Planck width, connect two 4d quantum vacua, the 3d confined matter, geometrical Planck structures itself, can emerge together with thermidynamic time. The 4d wormhole vacuum is eternal and timeless. It has to be created by the gods.

The question is where the quantum vacuum came from. — Hillary

This statement is incoherent. Spacetime is emergent and "the question of where from" assumes space.

This statement is incoherent. Spacetime is emergent and "the question of where from" assumes space. — 180 Proof

Dear mother of god... Now look here, ceramic conductor, the 3d space and accompanying thermodynamic time emerge on a higher dimensional pre-existing infinite quantum vacuum which itself is TD time-less. The question is where this came from. There is only one reason it exists. The specific geometrical structure including the fundamental virtual particles whirling in it, has only one reason that it exists: guess who deliver the reason?

And "creationism" — 180 Proof

Creationism is another doctrine. You really think they created us? Only the fundaments.

Besides, "String Theory" isn't the only game in town — 180 Proof

Which only goes to show that woowoo is told.

Didn't you like our excited debate? — javi2541997

If the discussion were substantive, that would be fine, but...

:ok: :roll:

If the discussion were substantive, that would be fine, but... — T Clark

...but it wasn't? Brother Clark, how substantial you want to get? The very existence of gods and the reason for existence was discussed... In one-liners, okay, thats true...

Kurt Gödel, no less, was convinced there was something to the ontological argument. He, I was led to understand, developed his own version of it. Google for more! — Agent Smith

A great math guy but something of a nut case toward the end.

This thread is like a time travel back to the scholasticism of the 13th century using quantum theory to revive that ancient nonsense. String theory vs angels on the head of a pin. What a waste of the digital resources. :roll:

:sweat: :up:

String theory vs angels on the head of a pin. What a waste of the digital resources. :roll: — jgill

There's a resemblance, you know. The medieval debate was whether two immaterial intellects could occupy the same space. Nowadays the debate is about the meaning of super-position and how the same particle can be in two places at once. It ain't that remote. In future there will probably be scathing references to string theory as an example of the degenerate nature of 21st c physics. But, you are right, this thread is indeed a waste of electrons, over and out.

This thread is like a time travel back to the scholasticism of the 13th century using quantum theory to revive that ancient nonsense. String theory vs angels on the head of a pin. What a waste of the digital resources — jgill

But, you are right, this thread is indeed a waste of electrons, over and out. — Wayfarer

It looks like @Hillary and me deserve to die because our friendly debate...

Now listen javitwofivefouroneninenineseven, just because we had a kind exchange doesn't mean we ďeserve to die! Dear sister of god...

Nowadays the debate is about the meaning of super-position and how the same particle can be in two places at once. — Wayfarer

Which is obvious nonsense! How can a particle be at two places together? It can't! Thats why an alternative QM is needed.

In future there will probably be scathing references to string theory as an example of the degenerate nature of 21st c physics — Wayfarer

The future is now. Strings are woowoo supreme.

A great math guy but something of a nut case toward the end.

This thread is like a time travel back to the scholasticism of the 13th century using quantum theory to revive that ancient nonsense. String theory vs angels on the head of a pin. What a waste of the digital resources. :roll: — jgill

I thought you might say that. :snicker:

There's a thin line between genius and insanity. — Oscar Levant

Also, good ideas and good arguments are timeless in a manner of speaking. They're as relevant today as they were back then and they will stay so until better ones come along.

Did you know, no one's actually refuted the ontological argument to everybody's satisfaction. That speaks volumes, does it not?