Protons and neutrons require only up and down quarks, and not the other four quarks. — PoeticUniverse
Of course, all inferences, scientific or philosophical, are uncertain. — Gnomon
undefined behavior (UB) is the result of executing a program whose behavior is prescribed to be unpredictable
In the C community, undefined behavior may be humorously referred to as "nasal demons"
Awesome insight! who would though of misinformation on wiki.
This also explains why there is no clear-cut definition of "scientific" theory of nothing, it's obviously depends on most recent scientific discoveries.
Seems like we touched the ground of both scientific and philosophical. — SpaceDweller
To be honest though I believe there is a theoretical counter argument to the laws of conservation although it may take a little bit of mental gymnastics to explain it to you if really you want to hear it. — dclements
Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what?So, we uncertainly infer by "fact and reason" that 'The Mind' just happens to be sitting around as First, — PoeticUniverse
I'll ignore the blasphemy. A mind capable of designing an evolutionary process, and then implementing it in malleable physical stuff, could hardly be called imperfect. So, I conclude that the tendency to "fall apart" was intentional. Perfecting is a process, Perfection is an end. So to get from imperfection to perfection requires a period of weeding out the unfit. A sculptor begins with a blank block of marble, and carves away everything that is not a "perfect" imitation of the model in his mind. :grin:Hail to the Imperfect Mind that made a universe that will fall apart. — PoeticUniverse
That's easy. Our space-time world is limited by program parameters, but the Programmer (Enformer) of the world exists outside the space-time program. Is that so hard to imagine? A computer programmer is not "in" the computer, hence not bound by its rules. Instead, the computer is created to serve the purposes of the Programmer. The realm outside the confines of the computer is "much wider in scope" than anything within the low-resolution program.So, how did 'The Mind' and its information, out of thin air, such as it is, not the best, get programmed? Or do we just have to explain an event such as our universe, but not anything much wider in scope — PoeticUniverse
Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe — Gnomon
And here is the proof of a bug we found — SpaceDweller
Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what? — Gnomon
Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what?Multiverse theories, infer that an unknowable eternal universe has always existed, and froths with bubble universes that come & go. A likely story, but based on what "facts & reason"? — Gnomon
… from Nothing… — Gnomon
The least can lead to the great, albeit temporary, as seen in our universe. — PoeticUniverse
Good question. The FTL Inflation Theory (from almost nothing to everything in an immeasurable fraction of time) is either super-natural or magical, or both. For my own worldview, I prefer to move any postulated preternatural events outside of the natural space-time margins. Since we have no empirical evidence for anything that is not subject to the limitations of space-time, outside the known anything is possible. But to imagine such lawless behavior within the bounds of reality is un-realistic.So about 1/27 of the total volume of space in the present universe came to exist. Can space itself expand with a faster than light velocity? Hmm... A length of space larger than the diameter of the present-day observable space came into being during that inflation period. But were things moving FTL? — Verdi
Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :'Nothing' cannot even be meant. — PoeticUniverse
For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything. — Gnomon
The FTL Inflation Theory (from almost nothing to everything in an immeasurable fraction of time) is either super-natural or magical, or both. For my own worldview, I prefer to move any postulated preternatural events outside of the natural space-time margins. Since we have no empirical evidence for anything that is not subject to the limitations of space-time, outside the known anything is possible. But to imagine such lawless behavior within the bounds of reality is un-realistic. — Gnomon
Great one! Still the question remains where the least, comes from. Maybe it came from, or lies on another great, even in an eternal succession, but even then. Where TF did that came from? In my hunger for knowledge, I just can't understand. — Verdi
They likely see the universe and its complexity to be too astounding to just be so from the lesser, and so they must question it, 'answering' it with something all the more astounding, but don't question that since they've granted immunity to its prosecution by merely just declaring it to be supernatural and hyperphysical, and, to protect it even more add infinite scope to its Mind such that it couldn't even be any more astonishing and then readily accept that in place of the now infinitesimal scope of the universe in comparison that they wouldn't accept in the first place. — PoeticUniverse
Somehow, this robs the universe of meaning, whatever that means, and however full of meaning it is! — Verdi
Living can finally be rewarding in these modern times in places where it isn't still barbaric or greatly stressing, so all I can come up with is that experiencing life happily is close to being the only benefit to come out of the whole meaningless shebang. — PoeticUniverse
With all beautiful stuff in it — Verdi
Exactly! Before the Big Bang Theory, most scientists, including Einstein assumed that the physical universe had always existed ; although perhaps cyclical, but not progressive. But the evidence for expansion from an infinitesimal point (something from nothing), undermined their faith in a stable static predictable universe. :nerd:The One of Necessity that has to be, per Parmenides, as the simplest base. The least can lead to the great, albeit temporary, as seen in our universe. — PoeticUniverse
Yes. That's why I avoid postulating humanoid deities that, even though presumed immortal, are not necessarily eternal. Leaving open the question of turtle-like regression. Instead, my hypothetical "Programmer" is defined as Meta-physical -- hence not locked in the cycle of birth & death -- and as Enfernal (eternal & infinite) -- neither progressive not regressive, merely Potential. You may ask how I know that? I don't. I merely infer the definitive attributes of a Necessary Being. I can't prove empirically that there IS such a Being. But, I can prove Logically, that there must be a Necessary Being. :wink:The religious thinkers face the haunt of the regress that dooms their notion once they propose the lesser from the greater. — PoeticUniverse
But somehow there must be a pillar of the universe. — Verdi
Or else, who cares, since we can't get blamed for not knowing how all became. I'd really rather just make art compositions, write books, and have romance. — PoeticUniverse
Before the Big Bang Theory, most scientists, including Einstein assumed that the physical universe had always existed ; although perhaps cyclical, but not progressive. But the evidence for expansion from an infinitesimal point (something from nothing), undermined their faith in a stable static predictable universe. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.