You've asked about Machs principle, which you can just look up on Wikipedia. You ask *us* if there is something wrong with the Higg's mechanism when this is a philosophy forum. It's all very strange

Asking on physics forums offers no solace. Are you kidding. Only mainstream. Even in "beyond the standard model" the questioning of Higgs mechanism (not the particle) bans you.

You've asked about Machs principle — Gregory

I dont know if Mach used spacetime or space and time. Newtonian spacetime or Einsteinian. And its a nice question for all

There is no Newtonian spacetime. Newton kept space and time separate

The rishon model needs no Higgs mechanism. I thoughf this might be the place to ask. I have the frame ready for a nice book.

Thats why it is Newtonian. Absolute spacetime. Infinite c.

Anyhow. Im tired. Prishon wanna sleepy sleepy (weieired...). Was nice talking! :smile:

Newton kept space and time separate — Gregory

Well one last question. What do you mean that he "kept them apart"? They cant live without each other...

In the USA it's childish to talk about yourself in the third person, as you seem to know:

Prishon wanna sleepy sleepy (weieired...) — Prishon

In the USA it's childish to talk about yourself in the third person, as you seem to know: — Gregory

Thats exactly my intention! The child isnt endowed yet.

You wanna talk physics? Have a GOOD discussion, dialectical discourse? You seem to know about it.

There is no Newtonian spacetime. Newton kept space and time separate — Gregory

Why are you harassing @pirshon. Generally, his posts are higher quality than yours.

...and any lack of quality is made up for in quantity...!

You wanna talk physics? Have a GOOD discussion, dialectical discourse? You seem to know about it. — Prishon

Gregory is trying to piss you off. Seems like he's trying to get you banned by harassing you. You should stop responding.

and any lack of quality is made up for in quantity...! — Banno

Ah! Banno has joined the troops...

Whers did you get that one from? What lack of quality? Are you jealous? Give a physical argument please.

and any lack of quality is made up for in quantity — Banno

AND any...

You wanna talk physics? Have a GOOD discussion, dialectical discourse? You seem to know about it. — Prishon

I do! Thanks T! :smile:

I do! Thanks mister T! :smile: Bed awaits. Oh bliss of sweet dreams and dark nothing...

Well, your spelling and grammar suffers from sleep or drug deprivation on occasions...

No. Its that small phone.

and any lack of quality is made up for in quantity.. — Banno

Often, a large number of posts and threads means low quality. Generally, that hasn't been the case with @Prishon. You, who's primary contribution has generally been off-hand, smart-ass snipes at other people's posts, probably shouldn't be the one to complain.

And this you have done. In a sense, such questions push us out of our boat - sink the boat - and leave us in a sea. What then? The ancient answer is to swim. — tim wood

The sea? Boats? This is rhetorical, right? But I don't deal in vague metaphors. Do you think Kant was a good sea faring captain? Why, pray, continue....

Then, of course, the actual arguments step forward. My claim is that first, one takes the world as it is rather than what it is reducible to in order to accommodate the lame assumption that nothing can be said. Second, what can be said

The sea is a common metaphor for alienation at the basic level where meanings lose their grasp of the world, but it is also the place where one confronts this alienation: one has to "experience" this, in they way Ahab experienced that whale: with passion. But Ahab did have the "advantage" of being offended, illustrating that the world does not disclose itself in the deep recesses of its being unless one has somehow put the mundane attachments at risk. A person needs break he bonds that tie one to trivial interpretations. As with Ahab, it does not always go well. But then, it can go very well indeed, as with the Buddha. How well? Read into the Pali canon. I wonder if this rings a bell, the Abhidhamma. Weird to read, granted, but make the effort to grasp the essentials, and things get very interesting. Even Heidegger thought this contains something primordial.
Talk about primordiality to analytic philosopher and you will get only blank stares.

I wasn't trying to piss him off. I was trying to find where his mind is

Stop harassing people.

and any lack of quality is made up for in quantity...! — Banno

Pretty much the same is true of you.

Deleted

Here is the terminal point of "beginnings" where religion finds its existential reality: the impossibility of conceiving beyond the boundaries of the thought that makes beginnings possible by conceiving of them, for what is possible that cannot be thought? One must take Wittgenstein very seriously here; but then, one must put him down very emphatically: it is in the saying, the twilight world, where meaning meets its dark underpinning, and the world is a naked impossibility---this is brass ring of both religion and philosophy. — Constance

Could you expand on this?

That, too then.

Generally your posts have been reasonable. And you have earned more than one defender... ready to be tetchy on your behalf.

Anyway, the point is that imagination won't get one far in physics, unless one can put one's imaginings in mathematical terms. I'm not so sure the maths is "pure and shiny" either... you might comment on Inconsistent Mathematics.

This is from John 1:1 from the New Testament. My understanding is that "the word" is the translation of the Greek logos, which is understood as Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity). — Hanover

It is from the Greek, and can be taken to refer to language and logic, and how it is essential to apprehend the world: apprehending the world, taking it in to the understanding, realizing what things "are" is all done in the meanings generated by language, and since this already there as essential prior to any specific field of understanding, a study of the way language and its meanings structures the world is considered by many to be where true foundational philosophical inquiry rests. The true bedrock of analysis at the level of the most basic questions is language. The question that is presented here is, when one sees this, and learns to think at this level, the world shows itself as more, much more than language can say. Consider terrible pain as a very simple example. Is my apprehension of pain an expression of logos? Now, my understanding reaches into my vocabularies for different things that bring the pain to light and raise my awareness, but IN this contextualizing, the pain stands out as entirely Other than logos.

Richard Friedman in "Commentary on the Torah" offers a direct translation from the Hebrew as "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth - when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said "let there be light,."

This does not suggest creation ex nihilo, but suggests God created order from the pre-existing chaos. — Hanover

I do like the way the Bible takes matters that are foundational and constructs meanings to explain things. At the very least, it shows a regard for matters of fundamental importance that is all but lost in modern culture (busy, busy, distracted). At most, it bares the soul in its primordiality, prior to the "distance" created by culturally valorized trivia.
But let's face it, God didn't say anything. BUT: this saying can be seen as the way language in its iterations, its propositions, its theorizing, its dialectics, and so on, constructs meaningful possibilities that ar beyond language. Language makes it possible for one to see that at the basic level, our ideas are never equal to the ideatum, and our desires are never equal to the desideratum.
Closing in on Hegel here......

Talk about primordiality to analytic philosopher and you will get only blank stares. — Constance

How are you defining “primordial” exactly? Is it an abstract term with some concrete meaning, or just a ritualistic and impressive noise one might make - a group identifying chant?