Protons and neutrons require only up and down quarks, and not the other four quarks. — PoeticUniverse

Very true! The other four quarks though are virtually absent. If you consider them as mere exitations of the up- and down-quark, then you could say they are necessary entities, like the excited state of the hydrogen atom is one in a body of cold hydrogen. In extreme situations, the two extra families of quarks and leptons can come into play. They might even be considered necessary, not wasteful, but absent in the grand scheme.

The Nothing can't challenge God as it has to be created by God in the first place. It can try damn hard though.

Of course, all inferences, scientific or philosophical, are uncertain. — Gnomon

So, we uncertainly infer by "fact and reason" that 'The Mind' just happens to be sitting around as First, as not at all physical but now having hyperphysical magic makes a mediocre physical universe by being able to figure, plan, and implement, although having no parts to engage in its thinking and writing of the code, being singular, with no regress to how it became as a creative system, not at all partless, which gets ignored as begging the question, a Mind that steered evolution into making variant viruses and 50-80 million species of insects on a planet whose life suffers near extinctions from asteroids, volcanoes, wars, ice ages, global warmings, nuclear winters, and more, not to mention a long barbaric history and a trend for the dumb to produce many more offspring than the smart, and so forth as no better than nature could have done by itself and, coincidently, exactly the same as nature could. This is much better than even the tiniest step toward anything more decent and liveable.

Hail to the Imperfect Mind that made a universe that will fall apart. No wonder a lot of people have a sit-com mentality; they are mirrors of the Mind who thought that imperfect programming could fly.

I learned as a programmer at IBM that poor programs will often abort, but it's not any great shakes to expect that. Coder, you're fired!

Did it use a quantum computer? No, for it is non physical, plus that came out way later.

No more need for investigation; the Blundering Great Programmer wrote how all should go—and that is the Theory of Everything in a nutshell and a nut head. Global warming is now heading toward 2.7 degrees… The Third World War looms. Goodbye, cruel world!

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 as proposed by the template that Larger ever makes the lesser, and so forth? Let us only use the template once and then instantly throw out its rule.

hello fellow coder,

I guess our "great programmer" never heard of exception handling or even worse it forgot to debug prior to release, so this whole universe may as well be a debug version of what it should be lol. :joke:

And here is the proof of a bug we found, our scientists attached a debugger and discovered black holes, which are considered to be the place where our great programmer somehow divided by zero, which may explain why this universe is nothing else but "undefined behavior".

What is "undefined behavior"?

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"

nasal demons may explain the source of evil lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior

In the absence of fear, there would be no religion. Does religion today fulfil this function of relieving the stress of fear, for a thinking people.I think it does not. Today, it is divisive in a world which cannot afford it's divisiveness, it well may be our demise if humanity refuses to grow up. Do we not prep our children for living lives in delusion, with Santa and the tooth fairy. How in the world are the adult delusions different that religion offers. Must we live by the lowest common denominator and walk that righteous path of ignorance? Do we raise to the needs of the time, or do we embrace a blue print for a twenty five thousand year old elementary society that was bounded on all sides by ignorance. God needs to die.

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

Thanks. :)

Wikipedia isn't all that reliable which is part of the reason when people are writing college research papers they are supposed to not rely on it as a source of information. I don't even know if the link from which I quoted the PhD in theoretical physics is reliable or even correct since I know so little about quantum physics I really can't make heads or tails on what he is writing about. But then again I fairly certain that at least 99% of the people reading this forum can't be all that certain about it either.

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. I know that it might seem like I was being a bit deceptive for me saying earlier that the laws of conservation can't be broken and now saying that they could perhaps be broken or at least undermined, but the counter argument isn't a way to break the law itself but a means to say almost any rule we create could be undermined under certain conditions, which is basically true about any truth we assume or try to believe.

In a way I was hoping for someone to come up with another real counter argument to the laws of conservation, but of course it is almost all but a given that there isn't that many out there and it is unlikely anyone reading this thread would know of one even if they do exist. Any law or belief can be show to be faulty one way or another if one really wants to find a way to undermine it.

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

No don't bother, I could google out details if interested, but information so far is more than what I expected, thanks!

So, we uncertainly infer by "fact and reason" that 'The Mind' just happens to be sitting around as First, — PoeticUniverse

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"? Even within our knowable universe, scientists have imagined an unreal period of hyper-inflation --- fraction of an instant; near zero to astronomical size --- which fortuitously exceeds the speed limit of our own bubble universe.

The mathematical reasoning for that magical "presto!" appearance of something-from-nothing simply worked backwards from a desired conclusion to a highly improbable and unnatural process. Apparently, materialists faced with an apparent Creation Event, can imagine a variety of alternative explanations, and even make them seem reasonable by plucking numbers out of the air. Anything prior to the Big Bang beginning is uncertain, even when postulated by eminent scientists. :nerd:

Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe . . . .
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/cosmic-inflation/

Presto : 1 : suddenly as if by magic

Hail to the Imperfect Mind that made a universe that will fall apart. — 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:

“When carving stone, the sculptor removes everything that is not the statue."
___Judith Hanson Lasater

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

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.

If our world is a space-time bubble, whatever is outside the membrane is Not Space Time, hence could be eternal. Even the imaginary Multiverse is assumed to have always existed. So who programmed the Multiverse, with Natural Laws & Energy & Matter? If you like, you can imagine the Programmer of our world as an ever-growing tower-of-turtles, but only an Eternal Programmer can end the inconclusive ellipsis of open-ended existence. . . . . . . . . . .

When philosophers and scientists begin to develop an explanatory theory for a mystery, they usually begin with an Axiom : an unproven assumption. G*D, Logos, First Cause, Prime Mover is the all-encompassing axiom upon which my thesis is founded. That simple assumption is postulated as a beginning point for further argumentation. The rest of the argument is in the Enformationism website, and the BothAnd Blog. Any questions? :joke:


Axiom : An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

Pragmatic Idealism :
the kind of Pragmatic Idealism I'm envisioning does not replace scientific Realism --- and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters --- because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief. Only the unreal (ideal) Deity is, by necessity, taken for granted as an axiom.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe — Gnomon

To make this easier to imagine: in 10exp-36 seconds, about one third of the present extension of the universe came into being. The bang indeed. But in the context of the Planck-time, 10exp-43 seconds, this took a quite considerable time.

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?

Now, I understand why the Buddha is, in a sense, above the gods or even God himself because the Buddha is empty or is one with sunyata i.e. the Buddha is nothing and the joke goes,

What is greater than god, more evil than the Devil, the poor have it, the rich don't need it, and if you eat it, you'll die?

The answer: Nuthin'!

It appears the sunyata is a package deal - the Buddha had to take the good with the bad!

And here is the proof of a bug we found — SpaceDweller

50000-80000 species of insects known as bugs; here the great programmer coded 0/0.

Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what? — Gnomon

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.

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

Simpler same as the Great Programmer always being present and creating more universes.

… from Nothing… — Gnomon

'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

The least can lead to the great, albeit temporary, as seen in our universe. — PoeticUniverse

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.

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

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.

That's why I'm surprised that so many scientists accept such an egregious hypothesis, simply because it seems to replace divine Creation, with a smoke & mirrors Magic Act. I'm neither a Theist nor Atheist, so I'm not desperate enough to accept Scientish Magic in place of Religious Magic. So, my thesis is not based on Faith, but on rational inference --- from what-is to what-might-be. It's just a philosophical thesis, not an emotional religion. :nerd:


Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.

Egregious : extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake;

Zeptosecond - the smallest time unit ever measured
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=smallest+measurable+fraction+of+time

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers. . . . . “nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
___Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine is a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=3bb8aefab45e

'Nothing' cannot even be meant. — PoeticUniverse

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshipped it, and the Christian Church used it to fend off heretics. Today it's a timebomb ticking in the heart of astrophysics. For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082LN7XPV/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Great comment! And very understandable (I was actually Googling the words you explained later, didn't see it...) Inflation is regarded non-scientific in that it can't be. falsified. This doesn't mean it didn't happen. It even happens nowadays!

For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything. — Gnomon

Well, some think zero is the greatest number if it's actually the sum of all the positives and negatives. Infinity, being everything, like the Library of Babel, in a way has the same information content as no library at all: zero.

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

Yes, and it is greatly failing now that we didn't find a lot of B-mode polarization to indicate gravity waves for that kind of inflation.

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

The religious thinkers face the haunt of the regress that dooms their notion once they propose the lesser from the greater. 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.

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

You said it all in just one sentence! A prosaic, almost poetical TOE. Still... I thought so too. Somehow, this robs the universe of meaning, whatever that means, and however full of meaning it is!

Somehow, this robs the universe of meaning, whatever that means, and however full of meaning it is! — Verdi

A great meaning would be restrictive, but, more noteably, it would have to come from a God-Mind that is way too complex to be Fundamental, and so there is no overall meaning to the existence of the universe, plus, regardless, the universe comes and goes, so its beginning didn't ultimately mean anything, although we had to study it to see if it did.

What meaning can we get out of the Mandatory Eternal Existent that cannot not be, beyond that it makes 'God' unnecessary? Well, it's not like it had a choice, so beingness is not its message, yet, as a local meaning our wills drive us to survive and be, which was no picnic in the old days.

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.

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

Yeah, we must make the meaning ourselves. There is no meaning inherent to the universe. And how many suffering already has been done in the name of meaning... "It means shebang!" "Nono, it means kadoink!"... "What you mean, you/^%$%^! ?", and a fight to death follows. I'm not looking for a universal meaning, but somehow, without a god(s), being intelligent beings, I can't imagine how come the universe is there. With all beautiful stuff in it. The intricacies of quantum fields, spacetime, life, etc. As the Poetic Universe you know what I mean! I don't look for meaning in god(s), I don't even care about them, or take them as pillar for my life. But somehow there must be a pillar of the universe. In any case, not the traditional one and only God. They exist, but I leave them alone, and they leave me alone. So why should I talk about them altogether? Indeed, why? We can better care about the creation itself. And enjoy and wonder about it.

With all beautiful stuff in it — Verdi

We, of the endless forms most beautiful,
Are stunned that our glass to the brim is full,
Life’s wine coursing through us, as magical,
On this lovely, rolling sphere so bountiful.

Life’s a web, of whos, whys, whats, and hows,
Stretched as time between eternal boughs.
Gossamer threads bear the beads that glisten,
Each moment a sequence of instant nows.

Memory’s ideas recall the last heard tone;
Sensation savors what is presently known;
Imagination anticipates coming sounds;
The delight is such that none could produce alone.

Wow! I wished our leaders had that vision. If one needs leaders at all! There seems to be no feeling for the wonders of nature to be left these days. Great poem! I even tried to read it aloud. It flows nicely, like life itself should.

In my opinion, the concept of god encapsulates both all and none, so it's not really a challenge as it is an amendment.

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

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:

Necessary Being :
Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”),
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Parmenides-Greek-philosopher

The religious thinkers face the haunt of the regress that dooms their notion once they propose the lesser from the greater. — 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:

But somehow there must be a pillar of the universe. — Verdi

In answering to this pillar, we are bounded by not going backwards in having it to be even more inexplicable, on the one hand, and on the other hand to have it be doable in a simple manner but wishfully somewhat beyond brute force.

The fallback can be the multi-verse but no one can show that yet.

We see in photosynthesis that the electrons find the most efficient path among all the possible paths in superposition, that path winning out.

Perhaps, since the Eternal Existent with no beginning can't have any input going into it as a design, the default is every path possible, as like a giant wave function superposed, and what paths keep going the furthest with a high novelty return reach the winners' circle… whereat, as a pedestal, not a pillar, the winning potential paths somehow get activated by some criteria into Big Bangs.

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.

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

That's the best attitude indeed! :smile: F them gods...

That's the best attitude indeed — Verdi

Verdi,
Veni, vidi, velcro: I came, I saw, I stuck around.

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

There is a theory about multiple big bangs, I don't know what it is called and how is it theoreticized.

There is also a theory which say the universe isn't ever expanding but rather expanding up to some point and then again shrinking to initial state to form a new infinitely dense mass to produce a new BB.

These 2 theories if merged together may form a new more plausible theory that could explain infinite amount of BB that follow the same cause and shouldn't break the laws of physics (except "infinitely dense mass")
Unfortunately shrinking universe is not observed and dark matter (which is responsible for expansion) is unknown.