life might be wonderful....having to deal with superstitions in 2022 isn't that great. — Nickolasgaspar

Don't worry! But yes, I guess you have to deal with... But you could also just accept the gods as a given...

I can see only a white page in the link — Hillary

Agency in Physics
Carlo Rovelli

On the contrary! Im far ahead of my time. Already at 35! The world isnt ready yet. But my writings will soon be read in the whole world, Nobel prizes for physics and literature and maybe for peace will come my way. You gotta have a goal in life! — Hillary

-Well no. Your way of thinking is typical of the period before enlightenment when our superstitious beliefs projected agency in everything.
lol I can assure you...no prizes will come with that train of thought and level of standards...

Don't worry! But yes, I guess you have to deal with... But you could also just accept the gods as a given... — Hillary

-That would be gullibility....

Agency in Physics
Carlo Rovelli — jgill

lol....that is not what Hillary means by the term agency....

lol....that is not what Hillary means by the term agency... — Nickolasgaspar

Particles possess charge, the agencies that couple to virtual fields by means of which they interact. — Hillary

???

Ah! Rovelli! Conosco questo fisico! I'm not a fan though, as I'm not a fan of any. Well, only one! Harari from Israel. He's the only one who gave me a friendly reply. The others don't bother or ask money (you gotta pay one dollar to only ask a question, without a guaranteed reply). Look at his response, which arrived yesterday:

Dear Deschele,

 

Thank you for your kind and friendly mail.

If I have to guess, Rishons should be massless, but since the dynamics combining them into quarks and leptons is far from clear, it is truly an open question, even if the model is right.

I still believe, 43 years after 1979, that some version of this model must be right, and hope to live long enough to see it.

Fortunately, the decision is in the hands of mother nature and not in the hands of a public opinion poll.

Best wishes

Haim Harari

Best wishes

Haim Harari — Hillary

:cheer:

that is not what Hillary means by the term agency.... — Nickolasgaspar

You gotta admit though that Rovelli is quite an agency...

I sleep wonderful!

:yawn:

nothing he says has to do with your "agencies" though. He is addressing physical mechanisms.

nothing he says has to do with your "agencies" thought. He is addressing physical mechanisms. — Nickolasgaspar

Rovelli, like Sean Carroll, says a lot of weird things, far removed from reality. Charge is the agency that causes other particles to change. Charge is an "agens".

Rovelli and Carroll interpret our math and they know that they are hypotheses...not reality. Their interpretations only include natural concepts, they don't invent new realms with magical entities in them.
Charge is agent...not a thinking agent...not a god.

Charge is agent...not a thinking agent...not a god. — Nickolasgaspar

No, of course not. The universal stuff is not the stuff of heaven. But it's still divine stuff, as they created it to let the heavenly realm evolve inside the material universe. So there has to be a magical agens behind or better, inside of matter. Not gods themselves but something they, in their great wisdom, created. Maybe they can influence it. The laws of quantum mechanics offer a means. The math that's used in the description of nature has no real existence but the stuff it describes certainly has. Tell me, what is charge?

-"The universal stuff is not the stuff of heaven."
-No heaven has ever been verified...so its irrational to introduce it in an argument as a premise.(Logic 101).

-"But it's still divine stuff, as they created it to let the heavenly realm evolve inside the material universe."
-Again no divine stuff has ever be demonstrated, so it is irrational to include it as a premise in your argument. You are promoting Unsound Arguments.

-"So there has to be a magical agens behind or better, inside of matter.
-Only if you prove the above unfalsifiable claims you can conclude to magical agents...which you will also need to provide evidence on why they are magical and not just a produce of matter.

-"Not gods themselves but something they, in their great wisdom, created."
-An other unfounded assumption... You are officially guilty for "practicing" the Philosophy of Absuridism.

-"Maybe they can influence it. The laws of quantum mechanics offer a means."
-No they dont' the laws of QM just describe the "behavior" of particles. They say nothing about magical entities. all those are irrational claims boothstrapt on QM without objective justification.

You keep telling us what you believe but you fail to demonstrate good reasons on why you do.
When I ask you...you point to an arguments from ignorance fallacy.

The math that's used in the description of nature has no real existence but the stuff it describes certainly has. — Hillary

-Why are you attacking a strawman? Math is just a tool we have to describe relations, differences, analogies and equations between properties and systems in nature. Why would you ever assume that math have a "real existence" lol.

-". Tell me, what is charge? "
-Not part of this conversation.

No heaven has ever been verified...so its irrational to introduce it in an argument as a premise. — Nickolasgaspar

The question is: why does heaven need verification in the first place? For me it doesn't.

Again no divine stuff has ever be demonstrated, — Nickolasgaspar

It's the stuff around you and the stuff you're made of.

Only if you prove the above unfalsifiable claims you can conclude to magical agents — Nickolasgaspar

Again, there is no need to proof, verify, or give evidence. Only in the scientific investigation of the material world this is of importance.

An other unfounded assumption... You are officially guilty for "practicing" the Philosophy of Absuridism. — Nickolasgaspar

Absurdism is a great philosophy, absurdly as that may sound. If I'm guilty of practising it, then that only is in my advantage.

You keep telling us what you believe but you fail to demonstrate good reasons on why you do. — Nickolasgaspar

The reasons are obvious. To give a reason for existence. How rational can one get?

Why are you attacking a strawman? Math is just a tool we have to describe relations, differences, analogies and equations between properties and systems in nature. Why would you ever assume that math have a "real existence" lol. — Nickolasgaspar

I don't assume that, but scientists like Tegmark or Hawking do. Hawking even thinks God is a mathematician. Which some of them are, and it can be argued that some of them, being members of the human god species, played a wicked role in creation.

-". Tell me, what is charge? "
-Not part of this conversation — Nickolasgaspar

It is, as we talk about agency, and charge is an agent.

The question is: why does heaven need verification in the first place? For me it doesn't. — Hillary

- There is this thing call logic......
Fallacies are nothing more than labels we put on arguments containing unverified premises.
Do you even know the value of logic in Philosophy????

Why did you demanded from me to verify my claim "women are inferior to men''?
So your personal thoughts on what needs verification or not is irrelevant. I can make the same claim and say that your argument about heaven is not just irrational, but wrong since for me the claim "heaven doesn't exist" doesn't need justification.
It can go both ways...and this is not how we reason or should reason. This is not philosophy

There is this thing call logic... — Nickolasgaspar

What else, if the gaps are closed, is there to logically conclude that the universe, or better, the stuff it's made of, was created by gods?

Why did you demanded from me to verify my claim "women are inferior to men''? — Nickolasgaspar

I didn't demand verification of your value assignment. If you (hypothetically, of course) think women are inferior to men, that's up to you. I only said that this thread shows it might actually be the other way round.

It's the stuff around you and the stuff you're made of. — Hillary

No the stuff around me and the stuff I am made of...is stuff.
The qualifier "divine" implies things that you will have to demonstrate before placing it there.

Again, there is no need to proof, verify, or give evidence. Only in the scientific investigation of the material world this is of importance. — Hillary

-Of course it is...if you want to do philosophy, to produce Wise claims you will need Valid and Sound arguments..not unwarranted assumptions.
I can also say that I can dismiss all your claims because you are an inferior woman and deny to provide any objective justification for that. Can you see the problem in your eagerness to keep your assumptions unchallenged?

Absurdism is a great philosophy, absurdly as that may sound. If I'm guilty of practising it, then that only is in my advantage. — Hillary

-No it isn't...and since you are an "inferior woman" my opinion is the correct one (again see how your reasoning works?).

The reasons are obvious. To give a reason for existence. How rational can one get? — Hillary

-You assume that existence has a reason...you need to demonstrate that not just assume it. If not then you are proposing an irrational assumption.

I don't assume that, but scientists like Tegmark or Hawking do. Hawking even thinks God is a mathematician. — Hillary

Tegmark is a mathematician....what did you expect? Hawking was a "poet, its not fair to accuse him for that.

Which some of them are, and it can be argued that some of them, being members of the human god species, played a wicked role in creation. — Hillary

-Not interested in what you believe...only in what you can demonstrate as sound...

It is, as we talk about agency, and charge is an agent. — Hillary

No it isn't. We are talking about non natural agents and how you can demonstrate believing in them to be a reasonable act.

I can make the same claim and say that your argument about heaven is not just irrational, but wrong since for me the claim "heaven doesn't exist" doesn't need justification. — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed, you can! I'm not saying I know the truth for you. There are more objective truths, and depending on who you ask, a different story will be given.

Indeed, you can! I'm not saying I know the truth for you. — Hillary

No you don't....I do! You can't know the truth because you are an inferior human being! How can that is possible?
Now joke aside. Truth is an evaluation terms we use on claims that are in agreement with facts.
You admit it yourself you can not provide proof for your claims. So you can not claim that you know the truth.
YOu accept claims as true to ease your existential and epistemic anxieties...that's all.

-"There are more objective truths, and depending on who you ask, a different story will be given. "
-those are "Subjective" and they are not truths but claims....Try using the correct words.

you sound like an amateur tennis player bragging on how good she is but when I challenge your claim and offer you a racket and a ball ...you answer is "I don't play tennis with a racket and a ball or a net".
This is what you do with your syllogisms...you remove all obstacles that would prove how bad your claims are.....but you need to understand that you can not hide your fallacies.

Truth is an evaluation terms we use on claims that are in agreement with facts.
You admit it yourself you can not provide proof for your claims. So you can not claim that you know the truth.
YOu accept claims as true to ease your existential and epistemic anxieties...that's all. — Nickolasgaspar

I partially agree. Its indeed an evaluation term we use on claims that are in agreement with facts. But there are more facts than the ones about the material world we live in and even when we limit ourselves to the material world, there are conflicting views on how reality truly looks like. One might see point particles where others see structures.

you sound like an amateur tennis player bragging on how good she is but when I challenge your claim and offer you a racket and a ball ...you answer is "I don't play tennis with a racket and a ball or a net". — Nickolasgaspar

The point is, I would love to play tennis with you. I have my own racket and balls though. A magic racket and magic balls. You would be tired and ask for mercy... Or blame the arbiter. "The ball was OUT!!!"

But there are more facts than the ones about the material world we live in and even when we limit ourselves to the material world, there are conflicting views on how reality truly looks like. — Hillary

That is irrelevant...You can only make those evaluations based on the available facts not on facts you don't have or might not exist....lol
The time to assume different versions of realities is after you have the facts to support them...not a second sooner...well you can but your philosophy would sound like yours(irrational pseudo philosophy)

-"One might see point particles where others see structures. "
-this is why in science we don't just "see" things we do complete observations and produce objective descriptions....

The point is, I would love to play tennis with you. I have my own racket and balls though. A magic racket and magic balls. You would be tired and ask for mercy... Or blame the arbiter. "The ball was OUT!!!" — Hillary

The problem is that your racket and ball only share the same label and nothing else, plus you keep denying the use of the net and lines.....

The problem is that your racket and ball only share the same label and nothing else, plus you keep denying the use of the net and lines.....
1m — Nickolasgaspar

It depends. If we consider the material universe we play with the same rackets and the play field is well defined. Though your racket is different from mine. And besides tennis a lot of other plays could be played.

Concerning the theological play, there are many different rackets to play with just the same. But you play with no racket at all. Which is admirable, but I won't challenge you in that case, as thats unfair.

iron age heuristics — Nickolasgaspar

:fire:

Excellent point! No offense Hillary.

Argumentum ad novitatem?

-"It depends. If we consider the material universe we play with the same rackets and the play field is well defined. Though your racket is different from mine. And besides tennis a lot of other plays could be played."
- You are missing the point. Independent of the nature of the universe our "rackets" should be able to produce objective results...if not then we admit that we don't know and can not prove

Concerning the theological play, there are many different rackets to play with just the same. But you play with no racket at all. Which is admirable, but I won't challenge you in that case, as thats unfair. — Hillary

-The only rackets that are relevant are those conforming to the rules of logic. Your metaphysics need to originate from a sound starting point...not an assumption that you don't care to demonstrate.

iron age heuristics — Nickolasgaspar


:fire:

Excellent point! No offense Hillary.

Argumentum ad novitatem? — Agent Smith

-identifying logical fallacies is not your strong point...right?