Apparently more like one of the greatest vectors of disease in the ancient world (well Rome at least), since they apparently were not cleaned and the water replaced often enough — Janus

Okay that, too. That's a separate issue though. If there was a way to keep them regularly clean, then they should work.

Right, although I think the problem was more that the ancients did not understand hygiene in the ways that we moderns do; that is they did not realize that poorly serviced public baths could become breeding grounds for dangerous bacteria. Or to put it another way: they did not even understand what it means to be poorly serviced.

Or to put it another way: they did not even understand what it means to be poorly serviced. — Janus

The irony is that they built the most impressive architecture in the world -- water ducts, coliseum, palaces, government buildings, etc.

What, precisely, is wrong with masturbating in public that is not wrong in private? — Possibility

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

So, public onanism was simply Diogenes asking a question (on social norms)?

Diogenes is Socrates gone mad. — Plato

Reminds me of so-called divine madmen (theia mania).

Take The Socratic Method (mental masturbation), take it up/down (can't tell) a notch and you end up with The Diogenes Method (physical masturbation)!

:chin:

But as you know I think I found a cosmology, which until now has withstand all critique (even my own!), apart from one detail to be fixed. So, now I know the fundamental makeup, there is only one means to give a reason for that material to exist and return the wonder to life and the universe which science had taken from it. — Hillary

Which is much more interesting than the 'background interference sound'/white noise you make with your last sentence in the above quote. In my opinion, your T.o.E speaks positively about you, your polytheism does not.
All you can do is find those who agree with your theism (like the SCIgodians!!). Perhaps Mr Harari is the best it's ever going to get.

I don't need them too. Not at all. They just offer closure and return the lost wonder. Universal life is just a temporary divine material version of the eternal heavenly life. And because they made it, we should be careful with nature (heaven kinda looks like the pristine state of nature, untouched by mankind). And yes, there it is: the moral! — Hillary

This just confirms my earlier thoughts about 'why you surrender to woo woo.'
YOUR gods really are 'fake plugs' for the parts of the origin story YOUR struggles with physics currently can't answer. You are merely a 'gods of the gaps' facilitator.

But how does he hurt people by doing that in public? What harm is done, apart maybe from cleaning up eventual sperm shot at public chairs in the doctor's waiting room. It might be entertaining in fact! Especially in a boring waiting room. Or pedagogical even — Hillary

What a naive posting. Most men will beat you up, some will beat you very badly if you act like that in front of those they feel protective towards. You sound completely self-indulgent. Your life has no more significance than anyone elses. You can't just do what you want when you share space with everyone else. If you can decide to do as you like in the doctor's office then other people in the same office at the time can do as they want and beat you up. If anything goes then the doctor can decide not to help you.
Do you think it's only your behaviour that matters?

YOUR gods really are 'fake plugs' for the parts of the origin story YOUR struggles with physics currently can't answer. You are merely a 'gods of the gaps' facilitator. — universeness

The point is, I don't need no plug anymore i struggled with physics over 15 years now, even dreamt about it. The physics ain't the problem anymore. The big question then: became, what's the reason for that material to be there? Where did it come from? And that was answered in a vivid dream, in which I saw them tinkering to find the needed material contents. The people gods delivered their part...

Your scigodians offer no physical cosmology. Specially for you:

Scigod!

Dunno. Why people have such difficulty with sex in public? I can remember kissing a girlfriend in a public swimming pool once. A lady was offended because of it. She asked us not to do it in public. It was that it was an elderly lady... I absolutely wouldn't mind it if people procreated in public. We're an animal species! Why are people offended by it? What's the big deal about sex? It's an expression of love!

Most men will beat you up, some will beat you very badly if you act like that in front of those they feel protective towards. — universeness

The question is, why? How do I offend?

I think you’re still missing the point. — Possibility

I don't think I am missing the point, I may be missing your point.

But this doesn’t settle the questions that Diogenes is presenting. What, precisely, is wrong with masturbating in public that is not wrong in private? I get that ‘society’ as a structure of civil order makes this distinction and is expected to reprimand him, but what is it that ‘disturbs our peace’? Why am I so keen to distinguish him from my ‘self’? It’s interesting how keenly we tend to align our ‘selves’ with ‘societal order’ on the behaviour of others — Possibility

So based on what you have typed above, I didn't miss your point at all, I fully understand it.
The masturbation point is an example of many such behaviours that most people prefer to happen in private than in public. Its not a question of 'correct behavior' or 'incorrect behaviour' is a question of 'acceptable or unacceptable behavior within the scenario offered.'
From you having a loud chat on your mobile phone while others are trying to watch a show to someone peeing into an empty bottle at the dinner table.The behaviour Diogenes is suggesting is that of a self-indulgent pig. A human dog who will shit right in front of you in the street is just that, a human dog.
The dogs behaviour is not wrong just like masturbation is not wrong but human society is idiosyncratic and nuanced and employs rules of engagement and rules of decorum.
War crimes are based on bad behaviour, aren't they!
In war you kill your enemy, would Diogenes agree that rules like the Geneva conventions are valid or would he advocate for 'all extreme behaviour is fair in war?'
I don't think Diogenes was making a deep point of significance here, perhaps you do?
Do you advocate for an 'anything goes,' society? If you do then I disagree with you and Diogenes.
If you don't then we agree. If you think we should be less 'chiselled' in how we apply any 'rules of decent public behaviour' and make the effort to understand the problems the individual human involved is having, then I also agree. I don't advocate for an absolutely zero-tolerance, sledgehammer approach where all rule-breakers are just disposed of with extreme prejudice.

The big question then: became, what's the reason for that material to be there? Where did it come from? — Hillary

So, as I said. Your physics fell short, so, in your frustration, you turned to the woo woo in your dreams.

Dunno. Why people have such difficulty with sex in public? I can remember kissing a girlfriend in a public swimming pool once. A lady was offended because of it. She asked us not to do it in public. It was that it was an elderly lady... I absolutely wouldn't mind it if people procreated in public. We're an animal species! Why are people offended by it? What's the big deal about sex? It's an expression of love — Hillary

Do you accept that people like the personal smells they produce but they don't like the smells other people produce. Perhaps that simple example will help you understand.
Would you like to watch your mother and father having sex in public?

The question is, why? How do I offend? — Hillary

So if you were having a meal with your wife and some of her family, in a restaurant to celebrate her birthday and the next table of 6 men, right next to you all started masturbating loudly, perhaps even helping each other. Would that be a nice night out for you?

A rock band called Scigod. :lol:
I suppose I should have expected that my chosen name was already used!

So, as I said. Your physics fell short, so, in your frustration, you turned to the woo woo in your dreams. — universeness

Again, precisely the point that I do understand the physics makes me pose woowoo. That's the only last reason, the closure. So it's my knowledge, not a gap in it, that makes me see, and the dream, of course.

Again, precisely the point that I do understand the physics makes me pose woowoo. That's the only last reason, the closure. So it's my knowledge, not a gap in it, that makes me see, and the dream, of course — Hillary

Then this is where we strongly disagree! I think your physics failed to provide you with your last reason and the frustration of that made you surrender to BS woo woo. I recommend you continue your struggle with your 'last reason,' as your current answer is completely wrong and will be utterly rejected by the science community, now and forever.

So if you were having a meal with your wife and some of her family, in a restaurant to celebrate her birthday and the next table of 6 men, right next to you all started masturbating loudly, perhaps even helping each other. Would that be a nice night out for you? — universeness

Dunno. If I were in the mood I might even join in. I like women as well as men! My wife would disagree, naturally. And probably the restaurant owner too.

"Mayo on your french fries, gentlemen?"

"No thanks, we brought our own! We have to shake the container first pretty firmly though!"

"Ah, I see. Need some help?"

"No, but maybe you can bring some extra fries!"

:lol:

Then this is where we strongly disagree! I think your physics failed to provide you with your last reason — universeness

Like that, physics never can offer a reason. My cosmology provides an explanation for dark energy, mass, matter-antimatter, the nature of particles and space, a following up of big bangs, particle families, dark matter, the existence of a mirror universe, time and pre inflation era. What more is there to explain? You can, as in the many worlds woowoo in the string landscape, or the MWI, include the universe in a larger picture, but that merely shifts the problem. Like that you push the solution farther and farther away. I know you have taken the woowoo of many worlds for granted, as propagated by the upper priests, but they offer you the same woowoo as the gods.

It shows again your "but in the future...(fill in all you wish for)" attitude. I have a final physical explanation. It doesn't need extra physics to explain it again! Now what?

So based on what you have typed above, I didn't miss your point at all, I fully understand it.
The masturbation point is an example of many such behaviours that most people prefer to happen in private than in public. Its not a question of 'correct behavior' or 'incorrect behaviour' is a question of 'acceptable or unacceptable behavior within the scenario offered.'
From you having a loud chat on your mobile phone while others are trying to watch a show to someone peeing into an empty bottle at the dinner table.The behaviour Diogenes is suggesting is that of a self-indulgent pig. A human dog who will shit right in front of you in the street is just that, a human dog.
The dogs behaviour is not wrong just like masturbation is not wrong but human society is idiosyncratic and nuanced and employs rules of engagement and rules of decorum. — universeness

Self indulgent? Yes, I agree. But does that make him a ‘pig’ or a ‘dog’? Well, that’s your opinion. He’s still human - ‘human dog’ is a contradiction in terms. Which is it?

And you’re still not addressing the difference between public and private except in terms of personal, affected preference. So, society’s rules of engagement and decorum are based on the majority’s affected relation to ‘behaviour within the scenario offered’. This is why homosexuality has been excluded as inhuman and ‘cancelled’ or forced into hiding for so long... but that’s perfectly acceptable, right? Homosexuality is not wrong, but human society has ‘rules of decorum’...

No, I’m NOT suggesting that you’re advocating the cancelling of public demonstrations of homosexuality - I’m just drawing attention to the societal process of determining what is ‘acceptable or unacceptable behaviour’, which Diogenes was questioning. It’s difficult enough to discuss these topics even now, but there were no opportunities for Diogenes to ask these questions in such a way as they could be understood - abstract discussions on reasoning such as Plato devised were insufficient - because it’s about acknowledging affect, feelings, and relation to quality or values as crucial aspects of reasoning.

The point is that we judge the behaviour of others based on certain ‘rules of decorum’ that lack objective rationality - so how can we claim righteousness? How do we critique the accuracy of moral or aesthetic judgement?

War crimes are based on bad behaviour, aren't they!
In war you kill your enemy, would Diogenes agree that rules like the Geneva conventions are valid or would he advocate for 'all extreme behaviour is fair in war?' — universeness

In Diogenes’ time, there was no such notion as ‘war crimes’ or ‘fairness in war’. I think he might question why certain behaviour such as killing your enemy is considered ‘fair’ in war but not in the marketplace.

Self indulgent? Yes, I agree. But does that make him a ‘pig’ or a ‘dog’? Well, that’s your opinion. He’s still human - ‘human dog’ is a contradiction in terms. Which is it? — Possibility

Pig and dog are merely emotive comparisons. Humans who eat like pigs in public or shit like dogs in public are valid comparisons. Human dog is therefore not a contradiction in terms, it is an emotive projection. Even theists merge humans and animals to invent deities.

And you’re still not addressing the difference between public and private except in terms of personal, affected preference. So, society’s rules of engagement and decorum are based on the majority’s affected relation to ‘behaviour within the scenario offered’. This is why homosexuality has been excluded as inhuman and ‘cancelled’ or forced into hiding for so long... but that’s perfectly acceptable, right? Homosexuality is not wrong, but human society has ‘rules of decorum’... — Possibility

You have just given an example of how societal priorities/emphasis flex and change over time and due to 'cultural/political' movements. Homosexuals in the UK for example are treated much more like equals than they ever have in the past. Such changes do not mean that there should be no difference at all between how someone might behave in private compared to public.

’m just drawing attention to the societal process of determining what is ‘acceptable or unacceptable behaviour’, which Diogenes was questioning. It’s difficult enough to discuss these topics even now, but there were no opportunities for Diogenes to ask these questions in such a way as they could be understood - abstract discussions on reasoning such as Plato devised were insufficient - because it’s about acknowledging affect, feelings, and relation to quality or values as crucial aspects of reasoning. — Possibility

I understand that but there have been and there still are many many groups who live under quite different social rules than I do. From the Amish to hippy style communes to city folks compared to redneck hillbillies. Diogenes was described as a cynic. He sounded a bit misanthropic to me based on my limited knowledge of him. I am sure he would have found fault in all human systems even with the quite 'relaxed' epicurean communes. I think Diogenes was understood as he is cited as one of the influences on the development of stoicism. I think cynicism does have value as an aspect of reasoning.

The point is that we judge the behaviour of others based on certain ‘rules of decorum’ that lack objective rationality - so how can we claim righteousness? How do we critique the accuracy of moral or aesthetic judgement? — Possibility

I think there are some human behaviours that we do as a species objectively or almost universally find repugnant such as paedophilia. But I don't think there are that many. Even amongst my own local group of friends, there will be different reactions to particular realtime events.
Two men kissing in the street In the town center I still find difficult. Some of my male friends will react much more aggressively to something like that than I would. Others would have less difficulty than I.
I agree that it's important to keep your own personal feelings of 'righteous offence,' in check.
Mob mentality is very dangerous, so is inflaming mob mentality for the hell of it. Many humans get badly hurt or killed in such clashes. So I agree that we do have to keep talking freely about such issues of what 'socially acceptable behaviour' means when you try to frame it objectively.
Most of it remains locally and even nationally nuanced however and individually subjective on a case by case basis.
I am not an instant 'my way or I will get violent,' person but I also won't accept that I have to accept someone masturbating in front of me without my consent. I am capable of violence if I am forced into something I am very unhappy with.

In Diogenes’ time, there was no such notion as ‘war crimes’ or ‘fairness in war’. I think he might question why certain behaviour such as killing your enemy is considered ‘fair’ in war but not in the marketplace. — Possibility

There may have been no legislation for such but there certainly were many notions of acceptable and unacceptable behavour in war. Refusing to fight for example or running away or betraying your side etc.
Alexander the butcher killed the Persian officers who killed Darius as his rules were 'only a king can kill a king.' An English commander during the battle of Stanford bridge apologised to the enormous Viking who was holding the bridge almost single-handedly. He was eventually speared from underneath.
The whole chivalric system, samurai system and many many other such systems are all based on do's and dont's in war. How are these different from 'socially acceptable behaviours' based on the cultural tenets of the groups involved?'

I have a final physical explanation. It doesn't need extra physics to explain it again! Now what? — Hillary

No, you don't!
Even if we take your viewpoint of the many-worlds theory as woo woo.
All you offer as an alternative, is the gods woo woo for a 'first cause.'
So, if the choice is between the multiverse, string/Mtheory, the Penrose bounce or some merging of all of these, then I will stick with the physics/cosmology route and you can betray and insult your physics by surrendering to BS theism, if you wish. That just means you are becoming a spent force in physics and we need to rely on others to eventually get to, or nearer to, the truth.
You just join the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy as 'one of those who respectably, tried.'

Well, if you would underdstand the string theory and the bounce and the reason for the MWI you would see that these are BS woowoo's and you fall for the bait. Probably because of the math involved. The DIMP guy doesn't even have his knowledge about simple quarks straight and woowoofs even more. Sounds interesting but his theory is BS all the same.I like it that he tries but his attempt fails, Im sorry to say. An eternal series of big bangs just needs the 7d quantum vacuum with wormhole structure to be created and the bangs follow naturally, exactly as the intention of the gods was and I'm greatful they showed me!

Well, if you would underdstand the string theory and the bounce and the reason for the MWI you would see that these are BS woowoo's and you fall for the bait. Probably because of the math involved. The DIMP guy doesn't even have his knowledge about simple quarks straight and woowoofs even more. Sounds interesting but his theory is BS all the same.I like it that he tries but his attempt fails, Im sorry to say. An eternal series of big bangs just needs the 7d quantum vacuum with wormhole structure to be created and the bangs follow naturally, exactly as the intention of the gods was and I'm greatful they showed me! — Hillary

No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs. The DIMP guy and the Mobius strip guy never posited a god to fill in any gaps in their physics however.

No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs. The DIMP guy and the Mobius strip guy never posited a god to fill in any gaps in their physics however. — universeness

The point is, I understand ohysics and they don't. I read some stuff of the DIMP guy and lemme tell you, if you don't know about quarks and basic QM, which he tried to explain by wave crests, than you relaize his intentions are good, but his physics sucks. Just like strings and a CY manifold to fit the forces. The manifold is constructed to project a particukar symmetry in, the SU3)×SU(2)xU(1) symmetry of the SM. The more basic symmetry is SU(3)xSU(3)xU(1). You could readjust the manifold but the flaw of strings is that it poses vibrating strings in a manifold coupled to 4d. And that manifold is just used as a mathematical closet to out the charges and properties of interactions in with no real existence as the make belief, i.e., woowoo. No dark energy, And strings are background dependent, i.e., no real gravity description from a quantum, as the space is alresdy used as inout. And many more. What's your problem with gods in the first place. I think it shows the vanity of man that science explains everything. Because it doesn't. It were the gods who brought it into existence. My cosmological model can account for all cause, until infinite big bangs in the past. But the first reason were the gods. So no gods of the gaps, but gods for a reason. But be free not to see that reality. Stumble on in the dark... :lol:

No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs — universeness

You forgot to mention the string woowoo. But that's the official woowoo not? By guys who really know it. The only thing the guys like Witten, Strominger, etc. are good at is getting tax money for the woowoo they spend their days thinking on.

The DIMP guy and the Mobius strip guy never posited a god to fill in any gaps in their physics however. — universeness

You really don't get it. There is no gap.

No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs. — universeness

Yes, but then they first have to understand what my theory is about, wont they? I know what their's is about, and lemme tellya, its woowoo, if you know about fundamental physics. Möbius strips, Klein bottles, and DIMP, have no place in the fundaments of physics. Well, a Möbius strip comes in handy for describing a spinor. It shows how he spinor rotates once after two spatial rotations, thats all. I blow these guys down the table in a minute... But hey, let them wallow in their woowoo: searchers for truth!

The point is, I understand ohysics and they don't. — Hillary

You need to convince established physicists of your claims not laypeople.
You are just screaming into the wind meantime.
Provide the links you have to physics sites that demonstrate other physicists agreeing with your hypothesis. Identify your published papers that have been peer-reviewed.
I especially want to see your final sentence that states 'my overall conclusion is that god(s) did it.
You have said in the past that 'you are working on it,' yet you seem to spend a lot of time posting on this site about god woo woo.
You claim you can blow all these physics guys away but where are your links that demonstrate debates you have had with physicists?

:lol:

You claim you can blow all these physics guys away but where are your links that demonstrate debates you have had with physicists? — universeness

The question of proof again... :lol:

Diogenes could've been a solipsist. Other people? What other people? :snicker:

Other people? What other people? :snicker: — Agent Smith

:lol:

"Alexander, please! You block my Sun!"

The question of proof again... — Hillary

In other words, you have no such links and you have no peer-reviewed publishings.
Can you do any better than, 'i'm working on it?'