But waves include particles. All particles in the universe are physically described by point particles and wavefunctions can be seen as cross sections of all paths these particles are on simultaneously. Or jumping from one path to another. The jury still hasn't decided on that one yet.

It has been very well demonstrated that light energy transmits through space, from one place to another, as a wave motion — Metaphysician Undercover

How has this transfer been seen seen then? Light moving through a bottle with liquid?

How can reality need an observer? It needs an observer to observe it, not to create it.

The philosophy forum:

"A vibrant community of people who rarely agree with each other but who all love philosophy, this is the place for philosophical discussions about knowledge"

You are not your body!" — Alkis Piskas

Now thats real nonsense...

Why caused the big bang to happen infinitely, and not just once, twice, or any other number? And if you have an answer, what caused that? And if you have an infinite number of answers, why caused there to be an infinite number of answers, instead of just one, two, or any other number? Eventually, "It just is." — Philosophim

I think there are two kinds of causes. Well, three actually. The first cause is what caused the whole shebang to exist in the first place. You can say it simply all is, but that's not satisfying somehow. You can invent whatever physical mechanism but still the question remains, "why this mechanism?". I think I know the mechanism of the universe, but I have no clue where all of it actually came from. God seems the only option. How else can it just be, even if eternal? You could ask the same of gods but at least they give it some...eeehh...well...sense?

In my cosmic succession model, every new big bang is caused by the right circumstances around a state without entropic time but with a literal clock time. This perfect clock state contained the seed for entropic time and as such cannot cause entropic time by temporal cause and effect.as contained in that time (cause and effect asymmetrical in time. Directed entropic time was caused, in a big bang, by a preceding universe that accelerated away to infinity. Like our universe will cause a new big bang behind us. So a timeless state (entropic time, that is), can give birth to one with time. But only if particles are not point-like, and if some other conditions are fulfilled.

I can accept "making no sense", althought it is not so appropriate in here. But what I cannot accept is "being noonsense", which is an offence and totally inappropriate in this place, as well as other serious discussions in public. — Alkis Piskas

I really don't understand your feeling about the use of nonsense. What's so bad if I think something is nonsense? It's not a personal attack. I just don't understand what you mean, so to me it is nonsense. I litterally don't sense it. I asked to explain what you mean, to turn it into sense. Should I have said that I don't understand?



Ahoy Scotsman! Why do you think that non-linear time is associated with multiple time dimensions? Time can be circular in one dimension. Closed time loops are a possibility in general relativity. On the microscale virtual particles states in the vacuum are represented by a circle, a vacuum bubble. Virtual photons or virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, are represented by closed one particle propagators in Feynman diagrams. In a sense such a particle rotates in spacetime and it can be released from it's closed periodic prison by real particles, like an electron and a positron can excite the closed photon loop, giving two real photons (which is called the annihilation of an electron by a positron), and two photons can excite the virtual electron loop to create an electron and a positron (or another pair). It were these loops that were the only material presence at the singularity. Time went back and forth. Then... bang! Freedom!

By the way, there are two books Brian Greene wrote. I think the story about the rotating bucket is written in The Fabric.

They have never been able to track a single photon infact we have never seen a photon the photon — MAYAEL

That's because photons don't emit photons themselves. So you can't see them. You can see them indirectly by letting them interact with the double slit equipment, look at the screen on which means looking at the screen. The screen emits invisible photons interacting with your eye (ou might even use your retina as the screen. You would see the interference directly), so you can see where they were when they interacted. When a photon has interacted with the screen, there will be a spots visible, by means of other photons reaching your eyes. The spots build up a complete interference pattern. The process of photons traveling in spacetime is not visible by itself (you can't enlighten them to make them visible), and in a sense all photons are virtual (so not only the ones between electrically charged particles, being the means for interaction).

So not being able to see them doesn't mean you can't imagine them to fly in space. The photons can't be seen but they still are there. Like a hidden force of nature.

That is not exactly true — Athena

Not exactly. But approximately.

When all the trees were cut down, the people could not build boats and meet their dietary needs by fishing. That led to eating everything on the island, which finally lead to cannibalism. The next most serious problem is just exhausting the soil. — Athena

Just like I said, they had their own way of coping.

Civilizations collapsed because of exhausting the region's ability to support life. — Athena

Most of these though collapsed by the devastating effects of science.

Where humans are consuming groundwater, they are nearing a disaster as they are consuming that water faster than it is replaced, and soon those regions will become deserts. Another problem is the limit of minerals essential to making fertilizer. The planet can not support the mass of humanity. — Athena

The huge number of people is caused by the disruptive power of science. Earth, if not being beaten in submission by technology and transformed in a homogenous, uniform field where only one species grows, which is protected by artificial raffinated chemicals and collected by enormous automated machines. There are virtually no people left who collect their own food, except for tramps looking in garbage bins, people owing a small piece of land. Collecting your own food is even prohibited or allowed with permission only. You can't claim your own piece of nature and build your own life settle. Who says that nature is not capable in providing for all, if left alone?

But then there is the cost, as always. — ssu

Seems like costs don't matter for Musk. The guy wants to move to Mars and die there, together with his girlfriend. Something has gone horribly wrong on Earth!

We eat. That's a fact. The food exists regardless what we think about it. In food there are huge collections of electrons. They have charge. A scientific fact. On the hypercomplex structure of the brain, parallel motion of charges can be imagined. These are running since the brain evolves in the growing embryo. These charged currents can flow in an astronomically huge number of ways, compared to which the number of elementary particles is tiny. All physical processes in the universe have a potential counterpart related to these charged currents. A bird flying in the sky has an electrically charged bird as counterpart flying in the brain, mainly on the visual cortex. These are facts. Nobody knows what charge is: fact. That's why nobody knows what a conscious visual of a bird actually is. Yes, a charged resonance (in connection with a birds or on it's own, like in a dream) of electric currents on the lightning-like axons, connections (synapses), and transit stations (neuron bodies), literally and more or less in the form of a bird. Nobody knows what charge is. But still we know it because we actually see the bird. So, consciousness can be explained by charge (holistically) but is a mystery at the same time though we all know how it feels.

Not sensitive, its just amusing that you expect your mere declaration that something is "nonsense" to carry even a scintilla of weight. — hypericin

If the information is a finite, say the maximum of information contained in the observable universe, 10exp120, then there are still is still a continuous collection of possible ways this information evolves. The information within a black hole is finite, and is radiated away in Hawking radiation, but this information can be distributed in a continuous way amongst the particles. So one real number is not enough, not even for a black hole.

But without science, no one would know we have global warming — Athena

Without science, we wouldn't have had a global warming in the first place. What else than science is responsible? Scientists themselves admit that. One doesn't need science though to figure out that pumping shitty gas (excuse the expression) in the atmosphere on a global scale will have repercussions. When the Krakatau exploded the weather changed notably for a few years.
So blaming the gods is ridiculous.

Plagues and famines, earthquakes and hurricanes, etc. have always been part of human history. Bad things happened long before technology and human beings were sacrificed to the gods to keep us save from their wrath. — Athena

True. And just like science is used nowadays to spare us from our own wrath on nature, while nature is increasingly the victim of scientific beating, people back then had their own means of coping. Rain dances, rituals, or whatever. Offerings included. But at least, nature was left alone, to a higher extent than these days.

We could not know about global warming until we had the problem and the technology to measure everything and understand the problem. We need to process this information and decide how we are to manage it. That is moving forward not backward. However, learning from the past could be vital to moving forward. A big problem with that is human populations are too large to maintain without modern technology. I think we are backed into a corner that it is going to be very hard to get out of — Athena

And again, we would not have the problem without science . The problem is obvious now. What information needs to be processed? Emission needs to be reduced, energy generation sustainable and clean, and the young be freed from the tyranny of the sciences (again: this is no attack on science, only on the power position it claims and demands). If there is overpopulation remains to be seen, but also here, science seems the cause, if we take a look at history.

see there is a difficulty in accepting our worldviews as mere stories, instead of having ontological importance, but isn't there also a difficulty in accepting responsibility in the name of a particular value? — SatmBopd

As long as one story with ontological importance for the people telling them is not made to bow to others or worse, is tried to be wiped from the face of the Earth by force, there is nothing wrong. It's here where the real moral issues must be looked for. In imposing truth in the name of, be it science, God, or stellar constellations.

Can we prove this? Why couldn't the big bang just happen? After all, if God is the first cause, why couldn't something else be? — Philosophim

Ah,yes. I misunderstood. Even if infinite spatiotemporally, it has to come from somewhere? It all just is there?

That would be the definition of a first cause, which would not negate the OP. I'm not stating whether that is, or is not the first cause, but I am saying there must be one. — Philosophim

If a big bang is happening time after time, every time from s fresh state behind the bang preceding it, how can there be a first cause?

Can we prove this? Why couldn't the big bang just happen? After all, if God is the first cause, why couldn't something else be? — Philosophim

If you go back in time you can't go back to t=0. What caused time to begin? God is the easy answer. That's no physical answer. If he created a singularity, how could time start from t=0. How could processes get a first kick if there wasn't any prior time? The first mover problem. Even God couldn't for then he would be a part of the universe. And because time stands still in a classical singularity, he could not give a first kick.

Okay sorry if I sounded impolite! It's young wildness, I guess. :smile:

I consider my view applicable to everyone. I realize though that there are more views. Don't we all wanna know the truth?

But what I cannot accept is "being noonsense" — Alkis Piskas

What is noonsense? Sounds like one wants to nap at noon! "I have superb noonsense!"

Where am I not polite? I just said it's nonsense and corrected that in saying that I think it's nonsense. Why is that impolite? In my view it is nonsense like mine is in yours. I just don't see why past and future don't exist. I said the clock indicating it is an imaginary one and that in the context of irreversible processes they are real. No more no less. Why shouldn't they be real?

see. That's just an invention of your mind though. Regardless, that doesn't negate the OP. What caused the charge? What caused the singularity? If you say, "Nothing" then it is self-explained as I conclude in the OP — Philosophim

God(s) aused the universe. Who else? But in the realm of causal relations, the first cause of each new big bang is a causeless state, which is not the state at t=0 because that doesn’t exist. That's what I mean by the perfect clock state. That's not my invention but a state that truly existed. There wasn't cause and effect as this process had no direction in time. It doesn’t make sense to speak of time in the entropic sense. There was the perfect clock state only, which turned into the imaginary time coordinate. During the perfect clock state there were no irreversible it could quantify. Time was empty so to speak. So the state of the universe that came from the singularity was the inverse state of the singularity itself. During the singularity the was only the perfect clocktime with no entropic time yet. In the universe there is entropic time only with only imaginary clock time (coordinate time, it).

So time doesn’t go back to 0 but to Panck time, as this was the time period of the perfect clock.

I have thought long and deep about this issue. Ontological relativism is the way out of all misery. The realization that all worldviews are just stories not to be taken too seriously is an enlightening realization. Difficult to accept, since the idea of one and only objective reality was introduced in old Greece, and we still feel the burden as the inheritors of old Greek ideas. But the only way to a true humanity and proper evaluation of human freedom of ideas and action. Everybody wants to know what the truth is and that it's applicable universally. That's why truth can only be relatively objective.
For example, I have a worldview. I think it's watertight and unshakable. It has grown over the years and the pieces have fallen into place finally. By self-criticism and adjustments over time I can say safely now that this truth is self consistent and compatible with current fundamentals of physics, explaining how the universe came to be and functions at a fundamental level and how the brain interacts with the physical world around us, what consciousness is, etc. A kind of theory of everything. I consider this an objectively existing world created by gods. That's my story.
But I realize it's just my story. Other people, or groups have other stories. They think I fit in their story objectively just as they in mine. It doesn't make sense to ask who's more, or less right. All people are. I don't mean that everything you fantasize is the truth. Or that lies don't exist.

The stone does NOT move freely in air. It obeys at least three influential forces: force of gravity, force of inertia (momentum) and force of air resistance — god must be atheist

I think we have a small misunderstanding. I mean there is a qualitative, intrinsic difference. The model of the combined motion of stone and air, including interactions, is represented by bunches of electrons that are pushed by voltages. The air molecules and stone move freely and once in a while collide with each other. Gravity is no force. The stone and air molecules form a free system in the sense that it's not periodically pushed and pulled into a new state. The process on the chip, the bunches of electrons on the tiny wires, representing abstract aspects of the real process, don’t flow free like the air and stone.

The acceleration is absolute, but the rotation isn't."
Is that not because there is no acceleration involved in Earth's rotation. — universeness

Well, on a rotating Earth, you feel an extra force, the centrifugal, a tidal non-local force. But, strange as it may sound, you can say just as well that the Earth is at rest and the acceleration is caused by an outside field. If you rotate in empty space your arms tend to move away and this can be caused by a strange form of a gravitation. So you are at rest and then suddenly your arms spread away from you. Of course it depends too on how you get accelerated.

I know of no documented text, traced to Einstein, where he states or even implies that it is valid to posit that an Earth-centric view has any validity. — universeness

It is stated somewhere in your book by Brian Green, about the water bucket (if I remember well). If you find yourself on a rotating sphere and look at the universe it seems as you are rotating. Rotation is a sequence of linear motions, each one a bit different than the others. Linear motion is relative. Acceleration is absolute but if you accelerate through the empty universe you can just as well say you are at rest in a gravity field, Same for rotational acceleration (the acceleration you feel on the sphere, outward).

Also, the Enlightenment gave us also ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state. Why would those things be bad? — ssu

All very good things indeed! According to me and you. The thing is though, that after church and state were divorced, a new happy engagement was celebrated and a big global party was organized. After the di-forced divorce, all people on the globe were obliged to dance to the scientific imperative. The scientific view of the ancient Greek was rediscovered by a small group of people who rightly didn't like the church imperatives and dethroned God. It put his crown on and protected and empowered by state it formed a new kind of God. A secular one and the world had and has to dance to her music. But not everyone likes the same music, like everybody has different notions of progress, freedom, toleration, fraternity, and government. It's a sad situation. In fact we find ourselves in the same situation as Galileo found himself back then, but the role of God replaced by Science. Let's hope the state will open her eyes and become aware of the situation, so she can reign alone, independent as state must be, not falling for romantic flirting of whatever calibre, be it God, Science, or Make Believe the second.

Why can't be something else (A) be a model of a portion of reality (B) where A is not strictly speaking a precise replica of B? Such as a computer program can be modelling (create model) of cars arriving at a service station at random, and seeing how much waiting time the owners of the cars must suffer to get their cars' problems fixed. — god must be atheist

It can! Like a model in a brain, which are just running patterns of sodium ions rushing in. How can a free process, say a stone moving freely in the air, be modeled by a process that progresses by applying a programmed force field on electrons in wires?

For those interested:

This is really a nonsense conversation — emancipate

Depends what you mean by nonsense. From the POV of those who think programmed electron currents can be a model, yes, indeed. The diverging view is labeled nonsense then. I understand what is meant though. But I don't agree. Nature doesn't operate according to a program and only a scaled (up or down) version of an object can be a model. The brain has potential models in itself of potentially every physical object or process. But let's put it to rest. The thread is about language to control the bunches of electrons by programmed voltages.

Build Me A Woman, Ten Feet Tall — god must be atheist

"Alright alright alright!" Horse Lattitudes is a pretty model too...

Okay. But I think walking in a world where drones instead of birds rise up from gardens, the sound of geese that are still left flying over is overscreamed by the roar of jumbo jets and the bang jet fighters breaking the sound of speed five times, conflicts are fought with atomic bombs instead of fists, the light of moon is replaced by artificial lantern light, the elephant path is replaced by endless tarmac strips, talking is replaced by communication, a house is replaced by skyscrapers trying to reach for heaven in vain, intelligence is tried to be captured on a computer chip and robots are considered the next step in evolution, instead of walking we move in structures with wheels, the world is watched on a 2d screen instead of seen directly, nature is put into isolated and air-conditioned canopies, the beach is created in cold areas and a 3km long snow piste recreated in the dessert, and nowhere in the world there are absences of the recreations, I find that world alienating, mind fucking, and depressing. It's there and there is no escape. Science won't help us, if technology is precisely the cause of trouble. As Einstein once wisely pointed out: "the solution of a problem never can reside in what caused the problem". Fighting fire with fire? Hmm...

So by your reasoning, could you say that what is called 'the centre of the milkyway galaxy' rotates around the Earth? — universeness

It's Einstein's reasoning: Acceleration is absolute. If you accelerate in empty space you can equally valid (is there one word for this?) say that all stars fall freely in a globally uniform gravity field (what causes this field is a different question). That's what relativity is about. Likewise, if you are accelerated on a sphere, you can just as well say that you are at rest and the stars "fall freely" in a weirdly curved spacetime. I once had a lengthy discussion about this on a physics site. The acceleration is absolute, but the rotation isn't. The spacetime you see around you on the sphere to which you are fixed is curved just as the linear accelerated guy sees a globally curved spacetime.

So, Galileo and the church were both right. Einstein brought peace!

Ah yes! Then the USA comes close indeed!

If time exists (literally, physically), it is infinite, since it has no start and end. That is, it is indefinite and indefinable (it cannot be described exactly). Thus, it does not actually exist, at least for us. So, the statement "Time exists" leads to its negation — Alkis Piskas

I think this makes no sense, or that it is nonsense. Time could have a starting point that is different from the time that is measured by the clock. The clock is non-existent in reality. There simply

does not exist

a perfect clock, the one used by Einstein to put on the time line, pointing to values indicating it's position on the time axis. Every value on the axis is a pointing of the clock's hand to a value. Time "derivatives" can be viewed as the variation of the tictac rate between the clocks in two close nearby points in space. If there is a difference between these rates, meaning the "time gradient" is non zero, an object set free falls down, which is easily understandable if you envision the object in outer space and we accelerate towards it. For you, co-accelerating, the clocks in your frame tictac with varying speed.

Now what does this all mean? It means, though itc requires some imagination, that the clock existed at the singularity, in a literal sense. This clock was the cause for entropic time, present in the universe, from which the truly fundamental clock had departed. The original perfect clock was the cause without needing a cause itself. The actual working of this first a-causal first cause, the actual universe caused depends on the preceding universe. That universe spatially retroactively creates the condition for the potential at the singularity get actual and the virtual to get real.

1

There are actually no 1s and 0s. — emancipate

Exactly! There are only bunches of electrons pushed and pulled around on the strict structure of the circuit wite. About 10exp15 times per second, in a programmed way, The program being laid down in that same structure of microcircuitery. How can that be a model of, say, the weather? How can algorithms leading to visuals of the shape of proteins, based on DNA information only, be a model of proteins?

Hey agent Smith. What is an OOO God?

Seems like all questions in philosophy reduce to the nature of reality and if, how, or what we can know about it, are there gods, can we know them, what is good or bad, who are we, and is it all determined?

If all awareness in the cosmos were to somehow miraculously vanish [...] what, if anything, would remain of the world as we in any way know it — javra

As awareness corresponds to electric and color charge, the whole universe would collapse, Zip! Kaboom! Kaput!

Consciousness=charge.
Virtual charge= Virtual Consciousness
Virtual charges=negative curvature
Negative curvature=Causing power
— Raymond

None of this makes sense. Flesh out what your words mean please. — Philosophim

Ah, you are the OP. Okay then. All of matter is charged. Charge is said to be the cause of force, acceleration, interaction, energy. It's my conviction that charge is the base for consciousness, even though the base charges, inside the base matter fields, of which I think two massless ones are present in the universe, are truly rudimentary. At the singularity, there was only virtual charge, electric and color. There were no cause and effect yet, though the virtual process constituted time with no visible direction. This process constituted a perfect clock without an entropic time, an entropic process, to measure. The charges had a "longing" to take off in entropic time, to become irreversible processes, with cause and effect. But. The circumstances were not right. This state helt hands with a negative curvature in space. Time was not curved as there was no direction in time yet. When the universe preceding it found it's end at infinity (in an extra dimension in space), the negative curvature reached max value, and the charges caused the birth of entropic time.

What first cause are you looking for?

Random' arrangements of words can signify, and this supports a detachment of words like 'qualia' from any ground in secret Experience.
5mOptions — ajar

That's a good one!

I think a different style will make the point easier to understand. The Apparent hypermeaninglessness of the flowing is incipiently instructive. While perceptual reality compliments Subjective self-knowledge, Awareness merely regulates a symbolic representation of Chaos. In other words, a 'formless' Void illuminates essentially infinite Experience. It's no longer cool to admit this, but the secret of the universe is obviously inextricably connected to Immortal Mysteries (as well as, of course, Mortal Miseries.) Though Culture exists as a symphony of boundaries within which Imagination shapes self-righteous Belonging, the Soul maintains its Existential Silence, knowing but not telling that we exist as bio-electricity, a Quantum summoning of primordial Qualia. And yet Death is the wisdom of unbridled human observation. — ajar

:lol:

But would not that imply that the subject is recontextualised as a hollow performance within a theory that foregrounds narrativity ? If 'Truth' is indeed capable of significance, reality itself is created
by the proletariate ( but only if reality is equal to culture; if that is not the case, knowledge is intrinsically impossible within a dismal regime of dialectical nihilism). In other words, the subject is interpolated according to a paradigm of consensus that includes language as a whole, with dialectical nihilism as unfortunately or not the only remaining bridge between 'Truth' and society — ajar

:lol:

More or less! Let's not forget though that to actually and objectively experience the non-narrative aspect of the conceptual imperative as imposed by the political powers in contemporary science dominated cultural exchange, eliminating the subjective... shit, I can't write... I laugh to hard!