This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs. — Relativist

What you mean by justified? Evidence? The universe and life in it is evidence. The gods are no superman fantasies. And who knows divergent QM observations are made. Or other dreams seen...

The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them. — Hillary

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche presents a famous fable explaining the transition from polytheism to monotheism (or what he elsewhere calls “monoto-theism”): when one of the gods declared himself to be the only god (the monotheistic god), the other gods (the gods of polytheism) laughed and laughed and slapped their knees and rocked in their chairs—until finally they laughed themselves to death! Polytheism died of laughter.”

The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right". — Relativist


No. But for life they are right. — Hillary

Life is a consequence of what they are. Different values would have led to different consequences.

Yes. Hawking said that. The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them. — Hillary

OK, but it still reflects a platonist perspective. Law realism seems much more reasonable.

Of course it's speculation. So what? — Hillary

Simply that it's not rational, because it's unjustifiable.

What you mean by justified? Evidence? — Hillary

Some sort of epistemic justification, including (but not limited to): deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation...

I couldn't find my car keys this morning, despite the fact that I always hang them on the hook by the front door. Am I justified in blaming a poltergeist?

Some sort of epistemic justification, including (but not limited to): deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation... — Relativist

Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. Of course you can say that's because we don't know but I think we can know. So the three combined give reason, sacredness, and an vision of how gods and heaven look like (like life and the universe) And a reason why they created the basics in the first place. And the sacredness tells that we should treat all life as sacred.

an

And the sacredness tells that we should treat all life as sacred. — Hillary

How would you define the sacred?

Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. — Hillary

Maybe your scientific description from beginning to end needs to be turned on its head.
Maybe there is a different kind of science, one not based on moldy Enlightenment assumptions about reason and objectivity, a science in its infancy that doesn’t split apart natural facts and their reasons, the makers and the made, the ineffably subjective and the objective? With this science it wouldn’t be necessary to seek a different realm from the scientific to find rhr kinds of answers you say you can’t find in science.

Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. Of course you can say that's because we don't know but I think we can know. So the three combined give reason, sacredness, and an vision of how gods and heaven look like (like life and the universe) And a reason why they created the basics in the first place. And the sacredness tells that we should treat all life as sacred. — Hillary

I'll assume that by "universe", you're referring to the stars/galaxies/dark matter etc that were produced by the big bang that cosmologists study. It's true that we don't have a scientific description of what existed prior to the inflationary period - but why would you assume this implies it's probably not natural? Why assume we can't go deeper, when you consider the gaps in scientific understanding (quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't reconciled - but theoretical physicists generally believe they will one day be reconciled). You say "we can know", but do you allow for theoretical physics to advance and answer at least some of the questions? It sounds too much like argument from ignorance.

Sacredness? Please explain what that is, and what leads you to believe there is such a thing. Why think there's a heaven? Is it a non-physical place, is it just a natural container for the universe? What's the basis of your "vision"?

That's exactly the kind of science I look for. All beings, all kinds of life, have evolved between the heat of the Sun at day and the cold of the void at night. There is a magic element in matter, which physicists call charge, by means of which matter reaches out for other matter and forms ever more complex holistic wholes, running away from thermodynamic equilibrium. All life evolves like this, towards one equilibrium at day and the opposite at night (heat intake from the Sun, heat radiated away to the cold void). There are many forms of these lives evolving, and all influence each other. There is no subject object divide yet, at least, not in the sense of positioning themselves oppositely to nature. Matter has material as well as magic (mental) features. Again, that's charge. Then the unity of both splits into the pure mental appearance in the brain, and the purely material side in the material, objective world. The body, i.e., we, or other living bodies in nature, stands between. The trees and plants still sleep. The inner world, the brain, shapes the outer world and the outer world shapes the inner world. Before life emerged, there was no shift yet. The mental and matter were one. Then the mental, the charges, became part of the inner world (patterns of electric charges continuously running in the brain, which from the outside looks material, but for minds only) and the material part of the outer world. With our bodies (or that of other forms of life, though viruses are still quite one) in between. The physical world is constantly simulated in our brain, our brain continuously resonates but at the same time shapes the physical world. But this is all happening to represent heavenly life, and it has to be complex if all forms of gods are to be represented in the universe. All mortal life has an eternal counterpart in heaven, as the universe itself. The difference being that it's all material plus divine charge here. But the big bang repeats over and over, in agreement with the desire of all gods to watch themselves eternally. In a sense we are immortal.

I'll assume that by "universe", you're referring to the stars/galaxies/dark matter etc that were produced by the big bang that cosmologists study. It's true that we don't have a scientific description of what existed prior to the inflationary period - — Relativist

But I have a description. And for what happened long before the big bang too. And after ours.

but why would you assume this implies it's probably not natural? Why assume we can't go deeper, when you consider the gaps in scientific understanding (quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't reconciled - but theoretical physicists generally believe they will one day be reconciled). You say "we can know", but do you allow for theoretical physics to advance and answer at least some of the questions? It sounds too much like argument from ignorance. — Relativist

The whole history of periodic big bangs is natural. And because I can't know more than an infinite past (in which time starts from zero over and over) so what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? What ignorance you refer too? It all fits together. Quantum field theory, gravity, dark energy, etc. Its all accounted for. Particles are tiny geometrical structures (3 of 6 space dimensions curled up to a tiny Planck circle, so no singularities can evolve, and the particles precisely fit around the mouth of a central 4d wormhole (which in fact is 7d), so the can inflate away from the mouth, on a closed 3d (6d) structure), there are only two massless basic fields, etc.

What's sacred? Good question!

But I have a description. And for what happened long before the big bang too. And after ours. — Hillary

But there are quite a few speculative hypotheses like this. How do you justify settling on a particular one?

The whole history of periodic big bangs is natural. And because I can't know more than an infinite past (in which time starts from zero over and over) so what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? — Hillary

What makes you so sure the past is infinite? How do you reconcile an infinite past with time starting over?

what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? What ignorance you refer too? — Hillary

What does it mean to be "infinitely long ago"? Infinite past seems to entail no beginning.

I referred to an argument from ignorance: i.e. we don't know what happened, so you insist "therefore it must be X". The problem is there there are many existing speculative hypotheses available today, and there's many more could be developed. How did you choose the one you embrace?

What's sacred? Good question! — Hillary

I'm asking what you mean by the term (which you used), not what IS sacred.

But there are quite a few speculative hypotheses like this. How do you justify settling on a particular one? — Relativist

Penrose's cyclic model and the oscillating branes resemble serial big bangs too, but offer no real cause for inflation. They take it for granted.

What makes you so sure the past is infinite? How do you reconcile an infinite past with time starting over? — Relativist

If before the current big bang, anither big bang inflates to infinity, then at the central singularity circumstances will trigger a new inflation. A new thermodynamic time and space emerge. And the end of our universe triggers a new bang behind us.

What does it mean to be "infinitely long ago"? Infinite past seems to entail no beginning. — Relativist

If the first big bang started infinite big bangs ago, then the serie is created infinite time ago.

I referred to an argument from ignorance: i.e. we don't know what happened, so you insist "therefore it must be X". The problem is there there are many existing speculative hypotheses available today, and there's many more could be developed. How did you choose the one you embrace? — Relativist

Mine explains dark energy. To be honest, I don't know if the others explain dark energy. Anyhow, every physicist considers his model right, and I can't see, and haven't heard yet anyone giving arguments against it. I criticized myself too heavenly. Maybe I see one problem. But Im working on it.

I'm asking what you mean by the term (which you used), not what IS sacred. — Relativist

It means holey, that you gotta have respect for creation. Its made by gods.

If the first big bang started infinite big bangs ago, then the serie is created infinite time ago. — Hillary

You're treating "infinite" as a number, and transfinite math doesn't solve the problem. Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today.

You're treating "infinite" as a number, and transfinite math doesn't solve the problem. Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today. — Relativist

Yes. But that's no problem for gods. Maybe they created the first bang a zillion big bangs ago. The matter and spacetime structure to make serial bangs happen. One thing is sure, they created it once. If that's in an infinite past, no problem.

Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today. — Relativist

Well, aleph0 is countable. The continuum is aleph1

Time proceeds in countable increments — Relativist

What do you mean here?

By the way, the only thing they have to create is virtual particles rotating in spacetime. An infinite 5d spacetime. Or better, two pieces of them connected by a wormhole. The real particles, thermodynamic time, and 3d space are emergent.

Time proceeds in countable increments
— Relativist

What do you mean here? — Hillary

This:

Well, aleph0 is countable. — Hillary

There is a successor function that "counts" from one transfinite to the next, but you can't count integers (corresponding to a day, for example) and eventually reach aleph-0.

This may not be exactly on point, but the notion of being invalid is more applicable to a theist as god(s) have been interpreted as a psychological crutch for people (believers) who can't face/handle the truth (WYSIWYG) as it were. It's likely that this is part of a broader defect of the mind which includes denial in some shape or form.

There is a successor function that "counts" from one transfinite to the next, but you can't count integers (corresponding to a day, for example) and eventually reach aleph-0. — Relativist

Aleph0 is countable. The number of big bangs is infinite. The times in all big bangs go from zero to infinite (or very large time). So an infinity of infinities or just infinity. You could involve aleph34 or baleph476 ot kaleph3, but why should that be a problem for gods? They are themselves eternal.

Aleph0 is countable. — Hillary

Yes, the set of integers is a countable set (unlike the real numbers). But the problem I'm referring to is that a temporal counting process would never end - it cannot reach infinity.

Yes, the set of integers is a countable set (unlike the real numbers). But the problem I'm referring to is that a temporal counting process would never end - it cannot reach infinity. — Relativist

So?

So you can't count infinity to yesterday.

So you can't count infinity to yesterday. — Relativist

The continuum can't be broken up in the first place.

The continuum can't be broken up in the first place — Hillary

Sure it can. The real number line can be divided into discrete, equal intervals mapping to integers. There have been infinitely many temporal points of time since yesterday, but we can divide it up into 24 1-hour intervals.

I mean the spacetime continuum.

points of time — Relativist

Points of time don't exist. Nor points of space.

Points of time don't exist. Nor points of space. — Hillary

Irrelevant. We can examine the passage of time in countable, discrete intervals.

We can examine the passage of time in countable, discrete intervals. — Relativist

Yes. And?

It is logically impossible for infinitely many intervals to have passed.