Yeah, another to add to the many many such short dramatisations in existence.
Poorly chosen phrases such as "the monster computing machines," suggest to me that poor wee Frederic was a 'fearty.' Let's hope future transhumans will be intelligent enough not to wish to cause suffering of any kind to any living creature or any flora or planetary system.
Love, benevolence, altruism and philanthropy are also very much a part of being human or transhuman.

Let's hope future transhumans will be intelligent enough not to wish to cause suffering of any kind to any living creature or any flora or planetary system. — universeness

And that is not certain. You may hope so, but if they become conscious who says they wont destroy their makers and beat the Earth into submission? Kill nature, which they wont need to exist. Turn the Earth into a transnatural horror fantasy? With only flat metal plains, pylons of power, energy plants, and automated factories drilling the Earth and draining her resources? Fearty?

Thanks for the video; I enjoyed it. "the fate of the Universe is to become nothing". Not to become nothing, but not to exist. Nothing does not exist. If one searches for nothing, what will be found--nothing. Do not search for non-existents: time, nothing, infinity.

the fate of the Universe is to become nothing". Not to become nothing, but not to exist. Nothing does not exist. If one searches for nothing, what will be found--nothing. Do not search for non-existents: time, nothing, infinity. — val p miranda

Precisely. The fate is to dilute towards the equilibrium energy state, which is the trigger for the next couple of universes to come into real being, from the virtual eternity.

If you use the search words 'Does expansion create new space' on sites such a quora, physics stack exchange etc. You get many many viewpoints . . . — universeness

It's hard to discern on TPF if a poster really knows what they are talking about, especially topics in physics. I think Haglund does have a graduate degree, and Kenosha Kid has a PhD. There may be one or two more. But a lack of in-depth studies of QM or general relativity is not a deterrent to posting a seemingly knowledgeable and well written statement on the subject. And if you go to a source like Wikipedia you might find confusing arguments and counter-arguments among experts in the talk sections.

One member here suggested a metric used in GR and when I read it on Wiki I could not tell whether a crucial term meant proper time or spacetime. And guess what, neither could a few of the "experts" speaking out in the general TALK discussion. Another instance was my attempt to find out what measure was appropriate for Feynman's path integral. In the article itself its just a brief hand wave, and when I asked about it in TALK I got no response. After a while I deleted my question.

The "big" theories are presented, in general, with much more rigor than they actually posses. It's a PR trick. QFT is not defined mathematically rigorously and a lot of axioms surround it, assuming things to be true.

"Axiomatic quantum field theory is a mathematical discipline which aims to describe quantum field theory in terms of rigorous axioms. It is strongly associated with functional analysis and operator algebras, but has also been studied in recent years from a more geometric and functorial perspective."k

Rigorous axioms... Can you see the contradiction? Can an axiom be rigorous?

Dirac called renormalization a "stopgap procedure" while Feynman had similar complaints. And let's be honnest (for a change...), isn't doctoring up an infinity to become finite quite... eeeh... stopgappy? Personally I think it's the assumption of point particles spoiling it all. I once proposed this on stack exchange but the question was deleted... there you go!

Another instance was my attempt to find out what measure was appropriate for Feynman's path integral. — jgill

Bedtime reading, for if you can't sleep. :yawn:

Bedtime reading, for if you can't sleep — Haglund

It's in Cyrillic. Nevertheless math symbols are the same, but to no avail for me - gobblygook. Feynman's path integral is not the functional integral I am familiar with. Playing with Functional Integrals

"Playing With Elementary Functional Integrals & Contours + Imagery"...

Nice toys you play with. Of course, the first thing I tried was to establish a contact with the functionals in QFT. I love the visuals. Especially on page 4 and 10 (which show a strange Moiré kind of structure because of the close lines). There seems to be a connection with virtual particles (interaction!). For example, free Dirac fields couple to the virtual photon field and a virtual photon is represented by a bubble diagram, a closed circle contour in complex 2d x,t or p,t, or even the combined phasespace approach. So you can imagine your integration of in function space is relevant somehow. If each point in spacetime is connected with an operator valued distribution. The operator just excites various free particle states which almost continuously change (because the interactions with the virtual gauge particles, say virtual photons) into free particles with different p's and x's. I got it uploaded! Gnight, oldi boulderer! :yawn:

Oh yes. The fun with the Cyrillic(?) text is to follow without Cyrillic.

Motion is the fundamental process. A baby moves to a teenager--continuous movement. There is no past or future, only the moment. Mozart is recorded in our memory and elsewhere.

Thanks for the video; I enjoyed it — val p miranda

Rovelli has a lot of YouTube offerings, all of them are worth a viewing imo. I think it's hard to argue against his point about the 'now' aspect of time. I don't see why the vid was titled 'time does not exist' however as I think his evidence suggests we need a more detailed understanding of time not that it does not exist. He and his team are still moving toward publishing papers on Loop quantum gravity.
I assume his findings will not use time as a component.

It's hard to discern on TPF if a poster really knows what they are talking about, especially topics in physics. — jgill

Very true. You get a lot of gifted amateurs as well. It's the same on all discussion websites, you have to trust what people type to an extent. I think it's important to get layman viewpoints as they can often represent the majority of the population but the input of expertise is vital to combat inaccurate viewpoints.
I also understand that any expert in a particular field may get very impatient with those who they can clearly see don't understand or know much about the topic under discussion.
Asking for evidence in support of their position is a good way forward I think.
If they can't provide evidence and they are insulting and dismissive towards those who are expert in the field then I think the majority will judge their viewpoint to be simply wrong and their personality to be simply compromised.

One member here suggested a metric used in GR and when I read it on Wiki I could not tell whether a crucial term meant proper time or spacetime. And guess what, neither could a few of the "experts" speaking out in the general TALK discussion. Another instance was my attempt to find out what measure was appropriate for Feynman's path integral. In the article itself its just a brief hand wave, and when I asked about it in TALK I got no response. After a while I deleted my question — jgill

:smile: I have had so many similar experiences when trying to gain a deeper understanding of a particular concept or area of cosmology. As I have stated before, my degree is in Computing Science.
I have post-grad qualifications in education (PGCE, chartered teacher, SQA final exam setter etc) and I have taken many ' internet-based modules,' on Cosmology (mostly through edx.org) but like many others, I also do my own background study. I think that a poor or acrimonious exchange with someone on a forum can have the advantage of reinforcing your own viewpoints or in some cases force you to review some of the details of the viewpoints you hold.

I agree that nothing comes out of nothing, but eternal universe is equally odd don't you think?

↪chiknsld Motion is the fundamental process. A baby moves to a teenager--continuous movement. There is no past or future, only the moment. Mozart is recorded in our memory and elsewhere. — val p miranda

Wrong. Space is part of existence. Stop acting like existence is only comprised of matter.

How does it work up there concerning exam questions? Who creates the questions? If I have created some nice physics questions, could I show them to authorities? Just curious.

No, only teachers appointed by the SQA who have the necessary years of curriculum familiarity and have already been previously been appointed as markers and examiners for the final exam.

In my view eternal is another concept, like, nothing, that has no existence.

I really should watch some of those videos, time permitting.

I really should watch some of those videos, time permitting — val p miranda

:smile: I cant recommend the cosmologist offerings on YouTube highly enough. Time well spent.
I find anything from Carl Sagan, Richard Feynmann......all the way to.....Laurence Krauss, Alan Guth, Carlos Rovelli, Sean Carroll and many others to be amongst my most 'life-affirming,' moments in 'spacetime.'

I find anything from Carl Sagan, Richard Feynmann — universeness

For the sake of Richard, his surname is Feynman. Small detail, but still...

For the sake of Richard, his surname is Feynman. Small detail, but still.. — Hillary

Yeah, I put the extra n in just for you!

Thanks! You're incredible. A bit paranoid, but still incredible...

Thanks, right back at you. I am still not sure if you are 'credible,' INcredible as ever, is in the judgment of others but I prefer to be genuinely, instinctively, ever so humble, without secreting or hiding disingenuous humility or using stealth tactics to hide arrogant pomposity or deeply ingrained beliefs of superiority.
I am not a little paranoid but someone who makes ridiculous statements such as

You can say that! Let's hope the nukes are dropped! — Hillary

are either employing very skewed logic or have a very poor sense of humor considering the situation in Ukraine where innocent children are being slaughtered. So I don't think it's unreasonable or a little bit paranoid to suspect you of trolling.

As @Vincent pointed out, when WW3 arrives this year, technology development will be accelerated and the quest for immortality and omniscience will be boosted. If we are simulations of a super intelligent alien civilization, they will probably have a reason for letting us get involved in a new world war.

As Vincent pointed out, when WW3 arrives this year, technology development will be accelerated and the quest for immortality and omniscience will be boosted — Hillary

Nonsense.

If we are simulations of a super intelligent alien civilization, they will probably have a reason for letting us get involved in a new world war — Hillary

Are you convinced you are a simulation?

Are you convinced you are a simulation? — universeness

I believe we are simulations of that intelligence. For some reason they created us. Sounds like believe in God but it's actually rooted in the material universe. Maybe they created us for the same reason we develop transhumans or robots. If so, it's only natural to proceed on the road of technological development and galactic colonialization. We help them, and ourselves, in the search for knowledge and wisdom.

Nonsense. — universeness

Why? All wars have shown an incredible speed-up of technology. Just look at WW2. Radar, the ENIGMA machine of Türing, etc.Imagine the speed up during WW3 or after.

It could even be argued that our development of high tech weaponry is arranged to speed up the technological development. Sad as all the suffering involved might be. You think I like it children are dying? The whole planet suffers from it but once immortality and omniscience are achieved we can create a whole new planet.

For some reason they created us. — Hillary

What reason then? What about just love?

What reason then? What about just love? — Vincent

Did they do it for us?

Think about what love is. It cannot be proved what it is. Nor can it be expressed in words what it means.
All religions are founded in the name of love. Rules have been invented for how to deal with love. Now I speak of a marriage between a man and a woman. But nothing is said about love for progress or for the planet in the religions. When religions were invented, people still thought the world was flat, but they already knew what love was. Love and hate has sent us to this day. We exist through love. For by love we will fight in a war. Love is nature's most powerful law. It is through love for our survival that we hold this discussion.
We need to rethink the concept of 'love'. God (or whatever god may be) didn't create us to fight each other forever. We have to accept love for what it is instead of fighting it. Only if we accept the concept of 'love' will we be able to understand where we come from.
I am not a religious person, nor do I believe that science is absolutely true. But think about it. About real love