Ha! I have been watching this funny video recently. About the gradient of time and the squirl falling. On top of the squirk time moves faster than below. This makes the squirl fall. But what if the squirl is contracted to a point? Well, a point also falls as the gravity field is the same as in a rocket accelerating in empty space so everything seems accelerating towards you. What are the problems with time? I cannot see any.

What surprises me every time is why a point is called an event.

Is causality more fundamental than time? If time is reversed effect becomes cause and cause effect. Instead of acting from the inside we seem to be acted upon from outside. We would feel like a clockwork unwinding.

The video doesn't answer the question.

Ah! In this one the gradient of time ain't discussed. There is another one with the same guy.

I think the fundamental is movement. Spacetime is motion. Not moving is relative.
A particle is a disturbance/movement of a field/bit of spacetime.
Time is duration of motion and is relative.
No universal quanta is motionless.
That's how I currently conceive spacetime anyway.
I also remain most convinced by the theory that the fundamental is some form of interdimensional vibrating string.

I think the fundamental is movement. Spacetime is motion. Not moving is relative. — universeness

Two threads in one! One in your domain, one in mine. Spacetime is spacetime. Motion is motion.

A particle is a disturbance/movement of a field/bit of spacetime.
Time is duration of motion and is relative — universeness

No. A particle is not a movement of a field or bit of spacetime.

No universal quanta is motionless — universeness

What's a universal quanta?

That's how I currently conceive spacetime anyway. — universeness

Rethink spacetime.

I also remain most convinced by the theory that the fundamental is some form of interdimensional vibrating string. — universeness

While it solves some problems, it still uses renormalization. Indicating the string view is wrong and has to be replaced by a more fundamental unit.

Spacetime is spacetime. Motion is motion — Haglund

I think they are entwined not separate.

No. A particle is not a movement of a field or bit of spacetime — Haglund

From: https://www.newscientist.com/definition/quantum-field-theory/?msclkid=8db02db7c2dc11ec801ce7d9673dde45
Quantum field theory marries the ideas of other quantum theories to depict all particles as “excitations” that arise in underlying fields.

What's a universal quanta? — Haglund

From the macro to the sub-atomic. Galaxies,stars, planets, atoms, quarks, photons.

Rethink spacetime — Haglund

All good scientists do that all the (space)time. It's mostly theists who restrict their own thinking.

Quantum field theory marries the ideas of other quantum theories to depict all particles as “excitations” that arise in underlying fields. — universeness

Yes. A particle is considered an excitation of a field. And a field is an operator valued distribution, the operators being creation and annihilation operators in Fock space (for a pleasant stay...). But what is described in Fock space? It's a direct product of one particle free wavefunctions in a Hilbert space. The wavefunctions describe a particle. That's what real. The particles, virtual or real, are the reality. Not the formal system of math.

From the macro to the sub-atomic. Galaxies,stars, planets, atoms, quarks, photons. — universeness

Ah! I misunderstood. I though you meant quanta as in quantum fields.

All good scientists do that all the (space)time. It's mostly theists who restrict their own thinking. — universeness

How do you know that? Im a theist and have given it a fair amount of thought.

The particles, virtual or real, are the reality. Not the formal system of math — Haglund

What IS is what is most important. The LHC has just been switched on again and it's a new enhanced machine (Yea!) so let's see what it finds. Perhaps all a particle is IS a motion/ripple/disturbance in a bit of spacetime. Just like a disturbance/wave in a liquid such as water.

How do you know that? Im a theist and have given it a fair amount of thought. — Haglund

Well, you are an unconvincing polytheist in my opinion, and it's that degree of freedom that allows your brain to do scientific thinking as well. You reject dogmatic restrictions such as you cannot know the mind of god. You have even stated that your gods don't satisfy the omni's. YOUR gods find this hard to do and that hard to do. YOUR god descriptions suggest they are as flawed as we are and not much more powerful. YOUR gods are kinda wimps actually. I think future transhumans could kick their ass out of the Universe. Just as well they don't exist!

What IS is what is most important. The LHC has just been switched on again and it's a new enhanced machine (Yea!) so let's see what it finds. Perhaps all a particle is IS a motion/ripple/disturbance in a bit of spacetime. Just like a disturbance/wave in a liquid such as water. — universeness

Ill telya what they find. Lepton or quark substructure! Yeehaa! :grin: They should smash electrons!

Well, you are an unconvincing polytheist in my opinion, and it's that degree of freedom that allows your brain to do scientific thinking as well. You reject dogmatic restrictions such as you cannot know the mind of god. You have even stated that your gods don't satisfy the omni's — universeness

It's not my intention to convince. Rather to counter new atheist. Which is based on science. Gods are indeed no God of Xenophanes. Luckily.

YOUR gods find this hard to do and that hard to do. YOUR god descriptions suggest they are as flawed as we are and not much more powerful. YOUR gods are kinda wimps actually. I think future transhumans could kick their ass out of the Universe. Just as well they don't exist! — universeness

In fact(!) heaven is the almost the same as the universe. All life in the universe has a counterpart up there. The transhumans have no counterpart in heaven. They can kick what they want... In vain! :starstruck:

Rather to counter new atheist — Haglund

New atheist is a dumb commercially invented term. It's just the same atheism but now they are a lot less afraid of the traditional threats from religious crazies. I think the current atheist position is somewhere between 'here are our arguments to counter yours,' and 'you wanna war? then we'll give you a war!'

What you think of the new atheists and the far right?

What you think of the new atheists and the far right? — Haglund

I read the article and looked for some info on the salon news group and its owners.
I always listen to warnings from left-leaning groups against individuals who have celebrity status but I need my own trusted sources to confirm their claims.
I do not hold with some of the political viewpoints of Sam Harris, Dan Dennet, Richard Dawkins,and Christopher Hitchens (whose brother Peter Hitchens, is a political idiot and a theist). I fully support their views on atheism not politics. I agree with most of the stated political viewpoints I have heard the people named above state (apart from Peter Hitchens) but not all.

An atheist can hold many other disturbing viewpoints as well as being an atheist. I would combat any such views with the same determination that I combat the preaching theist or those who advocate theism. My politics are left, socialist, democratic, humanist and green-leaning.
In my experience, capitalists and the far right are interested in personal wealth and power. They consider themselves superior to humans of a different culture, ethnicity or creed.
Politically, I would defend theists against right-wing atheists but I would still argue against their theism.

I hear reason speaking here! I would trust you as PM, but not the people in the article. In a sense they are exactly the same as the theist preachers. Why they wanna convince, persuade, or change?

I would combat any such views with the same determination that I combat the preaching theist or those who advocate theism — universeness

There is nothing against advocating. Why? What's against it? Atheists do the same for science. It's bad if a view becomes an institute of power and state. And science and state are married as God was once married with State too. Both are unhappy marriages though.

I hear reason speaking here! I would trust you as PM, but not the people in the article. — Haglund

That's what a true humanist/socialist/democrat must be and must demonstrate.
If the people put their trust in you and give you power then you MUST do what you said you will do in the time you said you would do it. At every stage, you must explain what you are doing and why (fully open government,). If you fail, then you must fully explain why, to those you represent. They must then choose what will happen next. Accept your updated plan when you explain it and give you more time to try or you must give up your position and let another vote take place where alternative positions.
I am becoming an advocate of a more progressive politics. Party politics have a bad reputation. I think a government should be made up of elected individuals with no 'party label.' You should be elected based on issues you will fight for and against. The government should be made up of all those elected. Opposition or agreement should be on an issue by an issue basis.

What you think of the new atheists and the far right? — Haglund

These so called "new atheists" are turning atheism into a new religion.

Atheists don't believe in God and end of story, new atheists go one step further and preach there is no God, that's a fundamental difference between the 2.

There is nothing against advocating. Why? What's against it? — Haglund

I did not and do not say that individuals should not or cannot preach/advocate theism/capitalism or even more extreme views. I stated that I would strongly argue against the wisdom and truth of their viewpoint. If any individual or group uses threat or force to strengthen or progress their position then it is valid to defend with equal threat or force in the defense of the majority.
Powerful checks and balances must be in place which ensures nefarious individuals or groups never gain or hold any significant positions of powerful. The military/police can never be fully controlled by the government alone. Defense emergency must be under government control due to response time but war declaration can only be made after gaining the democratic consent of the majority represented.

Atheists don't believe in God and end of story, new atheists go one step further and preach there is no God, that's a fundamental difference between the 2. — SpaceDweller

:100:

did not and do not say that individuals should not or cannot preach/advocate theism/capitalism or even more extreme views — universeness

You mean by more extreme views the scientific view? Because that's what the new atheists preach. With the sane vigor, if nit more,I might humbly add, the theists advicate theism. I say with more vigor, because they are so convinced that they are right. The say they know they are right, while theists believe it.

These so called "new atheists" are turning atheism into a new religion.

Atheists don't believe in God and end of story, new atheists go one step further and preach there is no God, that's a fundamental difference between the 2. — SpaceDweller

Nonsense!
Atheists suggest there is close to zero evidence of the god posit.
The word 'preach,' refers to delivering a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church. Atheists don't preach.

You mean by more extreme views the scientific view? — Haglund

No, I was referring to more extreme political or social views.
Science is not a religion so it cannot be preached. The empirical evidence for a scientific theory is presented, not preached. If there is little or no scientific evidence available then a hypothesis is presented but, unlike theism, hypothesis, is never presented as fact and it is just emotional nonsense to suggest any science is ever preached. Such is just presented by bitter theists or by individuals who are just bitter in general because they feel life has not treated them fairly.

I stated that I would strongly argue against the wisdom and truth of their viewpoint. — universeness

Then you, sofar, haven't given reasonable arguments against theism.

Then you, sofar, haven't given reasonable arguments against theism. — Haglund

I of course completely disagree and would say the same regarding your arguments for polytheism.

Science is not a religion so it cannot be preached — universeness

Of course it can be preached. It's done at our schools, like in bible class, but with different bibles and traditions. It presupposes one reality the same for all. In which I believe too, but there are more of these kind if realities. That's the postmodern attitude. Reality relativism, breaking free from the idea Xenoohanes, Plato, and other Greek introduced once upon a time. The thing is, the scientific belief has power and is institutionalized. Which is wrong.

I of course completely disagree and would say the same regarding your arguments for polytheism — universeness

It's not my intention to give arguments in favor of them. I only do so because you argue against it. I can't help it you don't understand the arguments.

Nonsense!
Atheists suggest there is close to zero evidence of the god posit.
The word 'preach,' refers to delivering a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church. Atheists don't preach. — universeness

by "preaching" I mean they're all shaking to be heard.
For them it is not enough that God doesn't exist, they strive to convert believers into non believers.

The most zealous speaker about new atheism and how there is no God is by no doubt Richard Dawkins, I remember one of his videos that he made (I can find it if you wish), he went near the crowd of Catholic sermon somewhere (there was some 1000 people attending the sermon), he was filming it and telling viewers something along the lines "look at all those people! they believe in God".
That's just pathetic and way beyond regular atheism, he is clearly preaching it, devoting his time to preaching atheism.

You may find this video informative because articulators are mostly all new atheists, I think that's the video I was referring to but not sure, it was long time ago I watched it:

Of course it can be preached. — Haglund

No that would be a contradiction of the term 'preach.'
I was a teacher of 30+ years and I taught computer SCIENCE.
I did not preach the subject to my pupils. I taught them.
You are engaging in emotional sophistry.

It's not my intention to give arguments in favor of them. I only do so because you argue against it. I can't help it you don't understand the arguments. — Haglund

Seriously? you argue in favour merely because others argue against? You are just playing the role of devils advocate?
It's hardly surprising then that I find your polytheism suspect and suggest you are merely role-playing.
I understand your arguments perfectly well, which is why I am able to reject them offhand.

I highly suggest the entire video though, even if you're familiar with the concepts. I'm curious to see what people think. — Philosophim

Not that causality is more fundamental than time. Causality IS time. You have to put Einstein on hold: time is the condition of the perceptual apparatus that is available to Einstein so that he could make observations and think at all. First perception, then science, is the order of analysis.

For them it is not enough that God doesn't exist, they strive to convert believers into non believers — SpaceDweller

You offer an imbalanced position. I agree that atheists wish to engage theists in debate and are 'happy' when a theist declares that they no longer believe in the god/ religious dogma that they did believe in. I have witnessed such during phone-in shows with Matt Dillahunty and other atheist phone-in shows.
I say you offer imbalance, as you do not cite the many examples of theist attempts to convert people to their cause. Some such evanhellical examples are much more aggressive than anything you can find from atheist groups. Atheists don't knock on my door to talk to me about their atheism but Mormons, Jehovah witnesses, et al, do knock on my door and attempt to preach their religion to me. They even accost people on the streets, unlike atheists.

I don't think much of Rod Liddle. He is a Church of England theist who holds some very suspect viewpoints. I don't think he could produce a balanced piece on atheism if his life depended upon it.

No that would be a contradiction of the term 'preach.'
I was a teacher of 30+ years and I taught computer SCIENCE.
I did not preach the subject to my pupils. I taught them.
You are engaging in emotional sophistry. — universeness

I was asked to teach math. But I refused. Only privately once in a while. Physics and math. In schools it's preaching. Teaching is preaching. And the young ones must learn by law. I didn’t wamt to be some refined slavedriver.