Why is it dissatisfactory to know the working of the universe?

What could those feelings be? Feelings of contingency?

They might not seem like satisfying explanations, but in neither case is there a gap. — AJJ

I see. But why, if no gap, are they not satisfying explanations then? If you think you know how it works, isn't that satisfying? Apart from the fact that you can't explain where that of what you think to know the workings of came from?

I have the impression you call the hard rock a contingency. Doesn't this imply a gap, somehow? Why calling the rock a contingency then? Or do I get you wrong?

Unless no further physical explanations are possible. What if a model is obviously true? You assume a reality never to be in reach.

It could be though that you have hit rock bottom and that bottom is just, well, the bottom. However hard you bang, it won't crack.

The explanations are different. A new physical mechanism behind the known ones cannot be reduced further at some point. The gods don't become them gap ones but, well, actual gods. Not to protect my theory from further parsing, but at some point you just don't wanna go deeper because hard rock has been hit.

Concerning just the foundation of being I agree with Oppy that God isn’t any more illuminating as an explanation than asserting that there’s some necessary aspect of the universe — AJJ

I don't agree. I think I have a model for a cyclic model. No beginning no ending. Now what? How can it exist, even if infinite in time and (4D) space? Where does it come from? Aren't gods the only answer possible?

Thanks for your encouraging words! I could just hold in a tear! :heart:

The 3 explanations you have are a necessary God, a necessary universe, or a universe that is a brute contingency. — AJJ

Actually, there is only one in the end. Gods.

Maybe I should have spelled out that it's a clock with a regular clock-face, that is, twelve hours, no more, no less. It has an hour, a minute and possibly a second hand. And it has existed forever — god must be atheist

It can't have existed forever. Every time a new universe bangs into existence the clock in the previous one indicates it's very late. Say it makes one full turn in every universe. The a new clock, causally disconnected, springs into existence, in the universe behind the old one. This clock can make one full turn just like the one it follows up. The clock only exist for real in the small era before each inflation (each bang). Time was perfect then, a perfect periodic motion, without the direction of entropic time.

It would need to show some time, undoubtedly. But how do we know how it was set, if it was never set? Remember, it had no beginning, no manufacturing date. It has existed for ever. It shows some time, as it is a regular clock. What is the time it shows? — god must be atheist

It would show the time that astronomers make us believe. About 13.8 billion years and counting.

The clock in this universe and that of preceding ones and subsequent ones are all starting from zero (well, actually 10exp-43 seconds away from it).

The words themselves, mmmh, maybe. In the analysis of how it's accepted or not. I I have the suspicion though that whoever wrote that piece you compare with, will subsequently use that knowledge to advice how we can get the scientific story established. Like the preacher can use this knowledge to get God established. Just replace Science by God, in the words you compare with F.

A tortured artist is a stock character and stereotype who is in constant torment due to frustrations with art, other people, or the world in general. The trope is often associated with mental illness.

This applies very well to my neighbor, that f...

The thing(s) making up the infinite past would have no reason or explanation for their existence (2) An infinite past is paradoxical. E.g. Planets that orbit the sun at different speeds would at every moment have made the same amount of orbits. Despite us actually observing the faster one adding more orbits than the other. (Same principle for whatever came before the sun and planets). — Down The Rabbit Hole

What if infinity in time is built up from infinite ùniverses following up each other in series, each with a beginning of time?

Inanimate objects can be beautiful. To defile that which is beautiful is evil. Morality is not just about life, humans or animals; it's also about the lifeless. Ethics is an ever-expanding bubble that's gonna swallow up the entire universe/multiverse. If you're good, your heart keeps the rhythm of the universe. :grin: — Agent Smith

Damned Agent! Apart from being funny you truly got stuff to say! Beautiful! You turned the blue skies blue again. The shadow on the closed curtain of two birds in the tree, just pointed to by my wife agree! :up:

Of no real importance to the subject, but noteworthy nevertheless. Bohm's hidden variables were attacked, calling it:

"A communist-catholic conspiracy"
"Juvenile deviationism"
"A disquieting sign of primitive mentality"

Bohm himself was said to be "a fool", "a Trotskiyte"
or "a traitor"... He was considered "slayed, not only philosophically, but physical as well". I wonder if Stephen Hawking would agree.

He points to the ideas of Feyerband, including the claim about science, including '"Scientific rationality" may be no better, indeed it may be even worse as a general ideology for regulating the relations of people one to another and to the natural world than lay rationality.' — Jack Cummins

Now they are something else!

If you considerate the vexing mind to be situated inside matter, then it becomes blatantly and unrefutably clear that reincarnation won't happen in the lifetime of present universe. The existent universe basically renders active reincarnation inoperative. The very constitution of the present universe militates against the concept, proving it an unacceptable notion. The reincarnated will be subject to it while the universe plays a leading role and gives rise to disconnected forms of the incarnate. The present universe makes itself felt and serves the purpose of the disconnected incarnates while offering no ground for the reincarnate. The inexorable dual ejaculate, that epic clarion of dual delight, serves the purpose to rigorously divide the realms between which true reincarnation takes effect, thereby effectively eliminating the naive notion of the soul transmigrating through bodies.
The higher dimensional erect, that strict domain on which the dual ejaculate propagates, combined with the triumphant and objective analysis of the ejaculates, categorically liquidates the phenomenon of a reincarnation in the current universe.
We are inevitably led to the trident conclusion that the age-old shields, swords, and banners utilized to sustain the irrational image of a reincarnating soul, should be merciless eliminated and be replaced by the more modest notion of eternal reincarnation.
Let's all celebrate this historic victory of science pure and simple!

I agree entirely. The loss of good language will be our undoing. — EnPassant

Maybe the language of subjective undoing, instead of objective doing, can save the planet. Imagine that language is taught to the children.

Feyerabend couldn't have said this any better. — 180 Proof

Except for one thing. He never would say something like this.

Aristotle’s “eternal circular motion” — Apollodorus

Aristotle was ahead of his time! He already contemplated the perfect clock, present in the state of the universe before inflation.

There are a few steps in deducing facts from this law in-between the underlying law and understanding time dilation — god must be atheist

It's simple. For the speed of light to stay the same for all, space contracts and time dilates. The gamma factor is introduced. In a lightclock this is easily visualized.

Maybe we should reword the phrase how we envision that there was time before the Big banggg and that our time is not absolute. And then rephrase the fact in a way that makes sense to astrophysicists, quantum mechanics and street sweepers alike, that space and matter in it (in our beliefs) have existed forever — god must be atheist

For the street sweeper. The big inflation swept the universe into real existence. The era, also known as the big sweep, took a tiny part of an average sweep of the street sweeper. All sweeper in the universe sweep at relative sweeping rates. Only when they meet, they see that some sweepers have swept more garbage into the bin than other sweepers. They all feel they sweep at the same pace and, assuming they all sweep alike, only when they meet each other will see that the bins of fellow sweepers are filled more, the same, or less than their own bin.
There is no absolute sweeper who determines the absolute sweeping rate. Before the real sweeping took of there was only a virtual periodic sweeping, constituting a real clock. It contained the potential of the real sweeping and swept along rapidly sweeping to and fro with a period that takes an even tinier amount of the time it took for the great sweep to sweep the real sweeping matter into existence. The perfect sweeping to and fro, with no direction in time yet, lasted the amount of time it takes for the real sweeping to become impossible, i.e, when all sweeping matter has turned into potential sweep energy which lacks the matter to actually sweep with. The end of the possible sweeping era causes the virtual potential sweeping to become real: a new great sweep.

Hopefully the sweepers of this era become the heroes of the next.

I think the curve between 300YA and now is not faithful. When life has evolved to the form of life we see nowadays, enformation seems pretty constant untill the Sun blows up 5 BY from now. Enformation seems to have decreased exponentially the last 300 years, instead of increased. When the Sun blows up all enformation on Earth will be dead and gone and enformation will even become impossible if all matter has turned into pure energy in the far future. So the red curve will go to zero then.

Thanks. No amount of explanation will stick. Because I don't see the underlying law that creates this effect. — god must be atheist

The underlying law is simple. The speed of light has to be the same for everyone (or in any case, finite).

All I am saying is that since there are different clocks present showing different times, the time-dilation may be a different clock from the what I called absolute time (or absolute clock).

I don't see why this would be impossible, and I don't think you can tell me either. At least not in terms that I understand. — god must be atheist

What do you mean by an absolute clock? The clock running outside the universe? Inside the universe there is no absolute clock. All clocks run at their own pace and no clock shows an absolute time. The clock though is an imaginary. There is no physical process that has the characteristics an imaginary clock has. Only the process before the bang constituted a perfect clock. But there were no things yet to put this clock aside of. Except in the mind. Nowadays there are a lot of these things happening but there is no perfect clock to be found. Except in the mind. In both cases, something is missing.

This means that reality is akin to a series of “words” (sentences) logically structured together, thus giving all reality its meaning. — Thinker108

Giving reality meaning. That means reality doesn't mean anything by itself. Words are meaningful in the eye of the beholder. They tell you something. What is the meaning of an electron? Who tells you what the letters and words are? Or how a sentence is formed?

From the article:

As the economy’s energy-starved productive sector atrophied, this corrosive catabolic sector metastasized rapidly. It profits from conflict, crime, and disaster; scarcity, hoarding, and speculation; isolation, desperation, and prejudice; fear, anger, and chaos. We can see catabolism at work in today’s fractured media landscape. Cable and Internet giants manipulate and monetize users. Their algorithms customize and sensationalize content, enticing us to keep clicking and scrolling. Curiosity draws us down rabbit holes that feed our anxieties and prejudices by marketing wild conspiracies, xenophobia, religious fanaticism, crackpot patriotism, and racial hostility. Weapons manufacturers are also well positioned to reap catabolic profits by selling expensive firepower to governments and small arms to terrorists, über patriots, white supremacists, drug gangs, criminals, and a fearful public. The catabolic contractions ahead will drive the demand for their lethal merchandise to record heights.

And on it goes. Now what kind of language is this? Exactly the language George Orwell warned for, in 1946 already, in the context of politics but applicable more than ever: Politics and the English language

1 human produces around 2 tons of CO2 per year. — Agent Smith

That's 14 billion per year.

I read this though:

"Tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
In 2019, about 43.1 billion tons of CO2 from human activities were emitted into the atmosphere. This was an all time high, breaking the previous record from 2018. The emissions could form a giant “CO2 cube” measuring 30 km on each side."

Quite a difference.

Look here for the amount thrown in from the start of this year.

It's a fucking fact that the western way has got the globe in a firm grip. And even if all energy that's involved in the mad western way came from the Sun directly and if it was made portable by hydrogen from the sea, and even if all waste would be recycled, the Western Imperative dictates Growth, Progress, and Mastery of Nature. A guaranteed recipe for globally total ellimitative and exterminate annihilation. If we are lucky, a global thermonuclear conflict will come to the rescue. Seems Putin and Biden wanna start the dance. It only takes two to tango!
At least they can use their toys! And as usual, the people and creatures who don't give a damn about the policies of the power get fucked.

I haven't provided any idea of how to give people the power they need to ensure a decent life. That's because....well, I don't know how it should be done. — T Clark

Why should it be given? They should just take it.

The clock hypothesis is the assumption that the rate at which a clock is affected by time dilation does not depend on its acceleration but only on its instantaneous velocity

Wiki talks in riddles (the rate at which a clock is affected by time dilation...?). The speed of the clock is velocity dependent. If the velocity varies, wrt to a clock observer inertial rest frame from , the clock's speed varies and when the clocks meet again the accelerated one runs behind.

I don't give a damn about marbles. In modern society it seems all is about them. And you have to play along.

However, I am certain that time dilation (whatever it is) — god must be atheist

It's just that moving clocks seem to move slower. If you accelerate them they actually move slower. On/in different points vertically above the Earth you have to accelerate in different amounts to stay where you are. This means that at these different points the clock runs at a different rate. On the surface the slowest.

The grounds we walk on.

On the contrary. The chance is exactly 1. I happen in an infinite variety of ways.

Thats not 100 billion (10exp11) ly, as the visible universe's diameter is now, but 10exp11 times as big!" — Raymond

No wonder it seems flat.

But what if the answer doesn't beg the question? And I don't mean the answer that there isn't a final answer. What if the final answer is "the gods"? Can you ask about them why they are there rather than nothing?

There may or may not be other matter in the universe beyond our observational capacity — god must be atheist

"If you count that inflation blew up the size about 10exp70 times, and multiply this by the Planck length, the universe was about 10exp35 meter in diameter. If you consider a lightyear to be about 10exp13 meter, you realize how big it was already then. About 10exp22 ly across! Thats not 100 billion (10exp11) ly, as the visible universe's diameter is now, but 10exp11 times as big!"

There was no time zero. When you reverse the clock, there comes a point, at about 10exp-36 second, inflation reverses and the whole shebang collapses to a Planck sized 6D closed sphere. The perfect clock where time ran forward nor backward. Waiting for the chance to explode on the Holy 7D Substrate, stretching to infinity. A Dual Ejaculate on the Infinite Substrate. Cosmic wanking of the gods. Once the present Ejaculate reaches for infinity, two new ejaculates will be shot to both sides of the magic fountain source. Hallelujah brothers and sisters!

Finally, there's death. We have countless cases. In every case of a person dying, they've remained dead. The brain is gone, and so is the person. There is no field of consciousness. No electromagnetic transportation of our consciousness. There is only the belief and desire that such things will occur — Philosophim

However... There is the possibility that once all matter in our universe has turned into black holes, accelerating away from each other in a couple of trillion of years while turning into EM radiation, so there will be nothing left tha vague massless remembrances turning into oblivion, that it all starts again. With the same you and me. Maybe we had this conversation before. Once all matter has gone in our universe and only the interaction fields are left, then why can't newly appeared matter at the Umbellicus not give birth to new particles leading to us?

That's also extremely dishonest to use the quote function — Seppo

I was in fact looking where you wrote this. Couldn't find it though.I had the same experience. Slightly different though. A "not" was left out, so it appeared I wrote something I actually denied.

Since electrons or photons sent even one at a time through two slits makes an interference pattern, they must have a spread out wave nature, indicating also that they are not pinpoints. While we refer to them as elementary particles, they, of course, are secondary, and so they are elementary only as ‘particles' — PoeticUniverse

I agree there are no pinpoints in nature. The calculations in QFT considers particles as point-like though. Who says the particles are not actually changing all paths continuously, giving the impression of a wavy spreading only. Which means they are not moving on a spectrum of paths in parallel and simultaneously but on one at a time.

Well, for starters (my two nickels), this reasoning eliminates idle, pseudo-questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which obscure far more than they clarify our discourses — 180 Proof

Why is this a pseudo question?