If locality is the case, then the common cause of the entangled particles' correlation is their initial preparation (See spontaneous parametric down-conversion). — Andrew M

Phew! That link was to a physics level that is a bit high for me. I clicked on sub-links such as 'non-linear crystal,' 'etc to gain a better insight. But I found I had to click on further and further sub-links eg 'Schwinger limit' and then 'Birefringence,' to gain any clarity. I will go back to it, but you have moved past my current width and depth of physics understanding.

Every day religion is forced to yield more and more territory to science; eventually, it will pass a point of no return. — finarfin

:100: :up:

I wish you well. — Vera Mont

I wish you peace in your mind and reconciliation with your species.

All numbers are represented by glyphs, so all numbers are graphics. The Roman numerals are supposed to be based on the image of a Roman architectural column.

The different glyphs are just different ways to combine images of a Greco/Roman architectural column.
So if numbers are just picture representations then suggesting they exist outside of spacetime, suggests that all human manifested symbols or imagined images exist outside of spacetime, which just brings us back to BS ways to try to find some significance in woo woo thoughts of 'outside this universe.'
I assume aliens will have an efficient way to describe how many planets are in the solar system they come from but that does not mean quantities have an objective reality.
I don't think quantities have an objective reality. I think they are subjective. Do you reference a football team or 11 football players or 22 arms or 110 fingers etc.
Do you see a pint of water or a combination of 2 half pints or so many water atoms?
How many branches make two trees?
Quantities are subjective. 1 star or 2 gases (hydrogen and helium)?

Pious BS! Evil always wins, because it's not hampered by principles, scruples or shame. Its victories can be mitigated by good people, its teeth blunted a little, but good will never score a decisive victory. — Vera Mont

I suppose this marks a boundary line between defeatist pessimism and determined optimism.
I remain with the determined optimists.

Just change 'a bit' to 'utterly' and you're right on the money. If I enjoyed being wet, — Vera Mont

It's unfortunate your species has disappointed you to such an extent Vera. But, I have to accept, that you do hold the opinon, that the power of the nefarious, will always have the upper hand over the powers of good. But, I think you are totally wrong in that assessment.
The nefarious have been slaughtering good people in their millions for centuries, but we are still here, and we are still many many millions, and a secular, humanist, socialist, united, global society, is inevitable, as is our transhuman, interstellar future.

He certainly is! Have you read his cosmological natural selection proposal (from e.g. Life of the Cosmos iirc)? — busycuttingcrap

No, but I have watched many of his youtube appearencess alongside other theoretical physicists.
I am attracted to his suggestion that the two primary approaches to quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity and string theory, can be reconciled as different aspects of the same underlying theory.

Oh I know the game fairly well. It's not about my exchange with Meta. The significance of that ended many posts ago. It's was more about any current or future readers of this thread, as small as the number may be.
It's not about 'post last wins,' but about covering all the side alleys Meta tried to run down for cover.
I have listened to many online debaters, discuss when they decide to disengage with an interlocuter, when the exchange has become pointless, for you personally, but may still exemplify certain tactics used by 'sensationalists,' for example that you wish to expose. I appreciate your further 'heads up' however and I am now finished on this thread, unless I get response from Mr Smolin, which is highly unlikely.

Which part of "humans use use tools... etc" is unclear? — Vera Mont

:lol: 'Humans use tools,' is very clear Vera. Calm yer jets! But its a very minimalist description of what Science via scientists does and achieves and what potential it holds for the future of the human species.
You seem a bit pessimistic and might I be so bold as to suggest, slightly jaded at times and disappointed in your own species. I think this colours your viewpoints a little. I assume my attempt at psychoanalysis is not welcome but I think my suggestion is relevant if true.

Pretending that half of our nature doesn't exist, or declaring that half of our nature shouldn't exist, leads to no solution. — Vera Mont

I don't think I am ignoring that a part of human nature is attracted to the numinous or god posits or pretending that such does not exist but I would argue against your 50% estimate and your position, as it seems to be. I mean, you seem to be suggesting that we cannot challenge that aspect of our nature. I think we certainly can and indeed must and in doing so, help towards solving the many problems we face.

Nor have I. — Vera Mont

I know that and that increases my hopes for a better future.

I've made as many enemies in that camp as in this — Vera Mont

Some new friends as well.

because the militants on both sides desire to win a war, and I believe the only win is peace. — Vera Mont

Hard to make peace whist you are actually under attack, socially, politically, economically, racially, culturally etc etc. I am still willing to try your way, if you have a cunning plan.

Responsibility, no: I didn't indoctrinate them. Sympathy, understanding and forbearance, yes. But then, I have those feelings also for theists who choose to remain in their faith, so long as they do no harm. — Vera Mont

I disagree and I think we do have a responsibility beyond tea and sympathy.
All that evil requires to thrive is for good people to do nothing.
But how do you know that they do have 'choice?' Unless you try to find out, on a theist by theist basis, when you encounter them.

You'd be much better off to keep an open mind toward things which you do not understand, rather than adhere to a prejudice which is derived from who knows where, and prevents you from furthering your understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

I take it you are looking in a mirror when you manifest such words. Heal yourself, before you try to recognise shortfalls or ailments in others. You have not exactly inspired many members of TPF, to feel so supportive of your position, that they are all rushing to post compelling evidence and arguments, which support your viewpoints on this thread.

In the initial work he cites, done by John Baptist von Helmont, the narrator suggests the 75kg gained by the tree was from water alone!! He makes no mention of photosynthesis!!
Was this tree kept in a pitch dark cellar?
I am no biologist or chemist but the fact that photosynthesis was not mentioned as affecting the growth of the tree, leaves me wondering what other aspects relating to growth were coveniently missed out, in the other examples they cite.

Banno is correct, you are wrong!

You might enjoy this:
https://www.quora.com/Where-do-the-electrons-come-from-when-using-magnets-for-electricity-generation

Have a look at the response by William Beaty and his use of 'electricity cannot be created or destroyed' and 'electricity generators don't generate electricity,' and also have a look at the 42 comments.
'Electricity is not energy it is a flow of electrons.'
Its the movement of air that causes wind. The 'energy' is the movement. Energy is transferred, due to movement of individual components. Like humans doing a Mexican wave. Each human does not move laterally they only undulate up and down but there up and down undulations cause a cumulative lateral energy waveform. The up and down undulations are conserved/transformed into a cumulative lateral, observable waveform.

The particle measurement events aren't causally connected (i.e., correlation is not causation). So the precedence order need not be preserved in all frames of reference. — Andrew M

I don't think its as clear cut as you suggest as the nature of the relationship between two 'entangled' items is not fully understood when we consider the following description:

Causation
Causation is an action or occurrence that can cause another. The result of an action is always predictable, providing a clear relation between them which can be established with certainty.
Causation involves correlation which means that if an action causes another then they are correlated. The causation of these two correlated events or actions can be hard to establish but it is certain.
Establishing causality between two correlated things has perplexed those that are involved in the health and pharmaceutical industries. The fact that an event or action causes another must be obvious and should be done with a controlled study between two groups of people.
They must be from the same backgrounds and given two different experiences. The results are then compared and a conclusion can then be drawn from the outcome of the study. The process of observation plays a significant role in these studies as the subjects must be observed over a certain period of time.

Correlation
Correlation is an action or occurrence that can be linked to another. The action does not always result to another action or occurrence but you can see that there is a relationship between them. Although the action does not make the other thing happen, the possibility of having something happen is great.
Correlation can be easily established through statistical tools. The correlated events or actions can be because of a common cause. Establishing correlation can be made certain if there are no explanations that will prove causality.
When you say that exposing kids to too much violence on television and films causes them to become violent adults can be untrue. Although violence on television and films can influence behavior, adults who are violent might have acquired the habit due to other factors such as poverty, mental illness, physical, mental, and emotional abuse as children.
It is therefore wrong to assume that violent behavior is due to television and films because there are several different aspects to consider. It is safer to say that there is a correlation between watching violent television shows and films and violent behavior than to say that violence in television and films causes violent behavior.

Summary
1. Causation is an occurrence or action that can cause another while correlation is an action or occurrence that has a direct link to another.
2. In causation, the results are predictable and certain while in correlation, the results are not visible or certain but there is a possibility that something will happen.
3. Establishing causality is harder while there are many statistical tools available to establish correlation between events or actions.

I think the use of the term correlation for quantum entanglement is a wise use but really just indicates that the detailed nature of the relationship is not yet well understood.

I am not too concerned about your metaphorical preferences. You can go with the millionaire who refuses the label due to the $100 he/she/hesh can't (in your opinion,) satisfactorily account for, if you prefer. I don't think using that metaphor would have encouraged Mr Smolin to answer my email any faster, if at all, and if, he actually received it.

Thus, where science swims, religion treads water struggling to keep its head above water. — boagie

:clap:

I'm not responsible for the impression you form. I said
Humans use tools for good and for evil, wisely and stupidly, constructively and destructively.
and, yes, also carelessly, short-sightedly and selfishly. — Vera Mont

We are both responsible to type what we mean and mean what we type. Clarity/misinterpretation, it's up to both of us to achieve as much of the first and as little of the other as possible. My position is that science is our best chance to increase our:
1. Lifespan and robustess.

ability to
2. Survive and thrive as a population of over 8 billion on a single planet.
3. Move off planet, and explore and develop alternate human habitation.
4. Remove money from our existence and start to create a resource based global economy
5. Unite our species globally.

I could add to this list but I think my direction is clear. I think science and new tech has a massive influence on what human beings can do 'next.' At the beginning of your life Vera. Telephone, Television, Electronic computing were in their infancy. Currency format had hardly changed in centuries.
In your lifetime, this has now changed to the incredible situation that you and I, who dont know each other and live very far apart are in very fast communication about the current state of our species and our planet and how we each think the human experience might be improved. We are also debating who and what is to blame for the current state of human global affairs.
Money is now dispensed using plastic cards and contactless beeps. Paper money is on the way out! Its just numbers that rise and fall in our bank accounts. What an enormous change!
Science is the reason for our current communication exchange. Theism has contributed nothing at all! Plenty of theists have contributed to science, but their theism contributed nothing, apart from not disallowing them to contribute to real science. So yes, I firmly plant my flag of approval in the science camp and I see the theism camp as a pernicious and backwards influence on all human attempts to create a fair, equal, universally benevolent, human global society.
You choose not to champion science and this is the basis of our disagreement, on this thread, about why science has succeeded and religion has failed.

I do agree. I just refuse to deny or condemn the other half of human nature. — Vera Mont

I don't think you can take that position and still be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I remain very reluctant to try to rip theism away from unstable/psychologically compromised/hopeless/terrified/lonely individuals. I have no problem struggling with strong/confident/self assured theists or nefarious theists (or even nefarious scientists/politicians for that matter).
There are many many good people who are theists, BUT, I feel strongly, that I do them no favours, if I just apply a blanket rule for all, that I leave all of them alone and don't probe enough, to at least find out why they believe what they do. If they say something like 'well that's what I was brought up to believe,' then it's 'game on!' as far as I'm concerned. But, if they start to show genuine fear and discomfort, as they cant cope with any attempt to crumble the theistic pillars they so rely on to support their life and who they are, then I for one, will back off.

Within the American atheist movement, they have set up groups that offer support for theists who are trying to breakaway from their theistic family/community. A theist trying to turn atheist can have their entire world destroyed. The responsibility for such suffering, must be laid fully at the door of the theists who impose it on those who no longer wish to comply with their doctrine.
Do you not feel a responsibility to be a source of help, encouragement etc for anyone who you think is a theist due to historical indoctrinatIon alone?

Militant Religious Movements: Rise and Impact — Vera Mont

But:
https://www.atheists.org/
https://www.atheismuk.com/
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/top-atheists-in-the-world-today/
also exist and are growing!

Keep calling it a "wall", or "conservation", when it is not. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, thanks for your permission. :lol:

To what is this statement contrary? If science is not a methodology whereby humans achieve desired ends, what is it? — Vera Mont

You know fine well that you are employing a loaded description of human intentionality when employing science. For me, your use of 'achieving desired ends' invokes a careless, thoughtless, selfish image of scientific advancement that lands somewhere around 'the end justifies the means,' impression for all scientific endeavours so far made. I think your invocations are harsh and inaccurate. For many, if not the vast majority of scientists, their reason for pursuing a particular field of science, is due to an overwhelming fascination with the field. Most are true seekers of new knowledge that allows our species to see further. They use terms like 'standing on the shoulders of giants.'
When they are in full flow about their subject, they seem more content and joyous about life and living the human experience, than any theist I have even seen on TV, in full preacher mode or any audience member in full religious mob hysteria mode, or even those 'messed up' folks 'fitting' on the ground whilst 'speaking in tongues.'
I find the 'wonder and awe,' I see in the eyes of the scientist, far more compelling than the 'servile, slave like, deferential conformity,' I see in the eyes of dedicated theists, who have no convincing explanation for their beliefs other than their own insistence, that there god is real.
You seem content to leave theists like that and not even find out if they are like that because its been poured into them from childhood. I think it's important to give them the freedom of alternative choices.

I am not suggesting that every scientist is immune from becoming a jaded tech creator, who just works for some capitalist individual or group and creates products for the mass market.
Perhaps that image is more akin to your 'achieving desired ends' description of the main intentionality of the main body of scientists. Scientific research, is for me, far more laudable than any theocratic or theosophical endeavour. I am surprised you don't agree but I still love to read your very interesting posts.
You are a force!

I find a flask far better company, and it doesn't make me as large a target. — Vera Mont

:lol: What tasty liquid do you have in that flask Vera? Do you really feel targeted? Tell them bam's to take their best shot and spit in their direction if they do. Then duck and cover, if you have to, but come back and rejoin the efforts to defeat them, if you can.

Yup, that'd be by preference - except it doesn't need to be low tech, just smart tech. — Vera Mont

The wheel is smart tech but it's just not enough for transhumanism or space exploration and development. For me, any future you might envisage is a humdrum prospect without those.

Some. And they're pushing back, big time. — Vera Mont

Let them keep trying. They base the fundamentals of their lives on fables, some of which are as ancient as the Sumerians. Time our species grew up and stopped believing in fables. Perhaps the USA is still a stronghold for them but globally, they are losing imo.

You're an optimist... and maybe not quite current on world affairs.
It's dark out there, baby! — Vera Mont

I am! I am also very current on world affairs. There is plenty of light on offer where I am. You just have to know what switches to turn on.

:up:

This is most apparent in his debate with William Lane Craig. Now physicist Sean Carroll utterly obliterated Craig in a debate that I often watch as a cheer me up. Craig is a smug cocksucker. — Tom Storm

I have watched the debate between him and Lane Craig twice and I don't know why Hitch did not bury him. I don't think Craig won the debate against Hitchens but I do agree that Hitch did not nail him to his own petard, in the way he could have. Craig was destroyed in his exchange with Sean Carroll and then, he was just overwhelmed, by Roger Penrose and was reduced to inputting humbled single sentences, every now and then. Finally, Sean, Roger, Carlo Rovelli et al, got together and totally debunked his Kalam Cosmological argument and killed it stone dead. Only Craig and any remaining Kalam fundamentalists, believe that some kind of defibrillation is possible on the Kalam.

it's a methodology people invented so they could do things they wanted to do - it's all about human desire and behaviour. — Vera Mont

I think you just enjoy taking any contrary viewpoint you can muster Vera, just for the fun of stoking the embers. I see no particular harm in that and I hope you are having fun doing it. But you overreach in my opinion, when you try to equate aspirational humanity using science with aspirational humanity using theism and theosophistry. I think it's important to assert Hitchens razer here! "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The theistic imperative is far more pernicious to me than the concerns I have regarding those who use science for nefarious reasons. Some 'well intentioned' delusional theists, even suggest you can find contentment, if you just accept god the totalitarian dictator, without question. If you don't want to plant your flag and champion science or theism, then where do you want to place your flag? A back to basics epicurean / bohemian, low tech society, who might eventually create a nice wee existence for all, here on Earth, but will never leave this pale blue dot?
Do you now choose to throw your flag away and not plant it anywhere?

When asked whether she believed in a supreme deity, like 95% of the population she was going to represent, Jodi Foster should have said: "If you all agree on the god I will present it the aliens." — Vera Mont

I think that 95% is now under continuing pressure from an ever growing, well organised alternative. Theism is losing more and more of its adherents every day. You should listen to some of the atheist phone in shows on youtube. I think that change for the better will continue.
Carl played his cards well in 'Contact,' when he dramatised some of the sad and rather embarrassing possible affects that American theism could have, on who we might choose to represent us, in a first encounter with aliens scenario. In Contact, we saw a nefarious character chosen and the idea of 'fanatics getting access to the machines,' represented.
But Carl then used one to get rid of the other! :party: :party: :party:

I sent the following email, to the address I posted above, after my previous response to you.
I don't know why I seem to have represented you in the plural rather than the singular in the message shown below.
If he did not answer you, he probably will not answer me.
Busy people I'm sure but its always worth a try.
If he responds, I will post it here.

Hello Sir,

I am currently having online discussions with some folks who posit that the conservation of energy law is untrue or false due to their claim, that experiments show some energy is lost and that loss is not satisfactorily accounted for. I would really appreciate your opinion on any such shortfall you think exists in the conservation of energy law.

My position is that it is ‘sensationalist’ to suggest that the conservation laws are ‘untrue’ or ‘false’ due to any inference of ‘missing energy’ made by those I am debating with. To me, its like they are refusing to accept the label ‘wall’ because two bricks are missing from it. Could you give a brief response, if you can find the time to?

Yeah, I think it was a gambit. I'm not sure if it was a wise one or not. He was a tour de force in debates, there is little doubt of that, but this particular gambit left him open to BS reactions such as:
anglican samizdat.

It could be my individual case of being depressed; but, that begs the question in my case whether the depression came first and then pessimism followed. — Shawn

You may be blaming something on your psyche or disposition that may be medical.
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55167

I've tried that route, but maybe we could have greater success in combination. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you mean he did not think your attempt to communicate with him was worth responding to?

For example if I believe that Paris is the Capital or France then that entails I believe London is not the Capital of France and That Berlin is not the capital of France and that A Monkey is not the capital of France. — Andrew4Handel

I am sure I have typed this before, but its worth making the point again. Misunderstood context either deliberately or by mistake can also result in interpretations such as F is the capital of France and L the capital of London. Look at the chasms between the various interpretations of religious scripts.

You are one lazy meta!
Try lsmolinatperimeterinstitutedotca

Actually, contrary to your personal prediction, there is a growing movement in this direction already. It's sometimes referred to as the quest for a "Theory of Everything", and it is required because of the inconsistency between the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of general relativity. So your prediction has actually been proven wrong already. — Metaphysician Undercover

Utter nonsense! Humans have been craving a T.O.E since they realised they could think. Science and scientists simply reflect that human compulsion.

Lee Smolin is a great contributer to the physics and the human community. I will leave it to him to dispute your sophisticated, skewed interpretations of his work.

Accordingly, I am in no way (I never have been) ... spiritual. Music is "my religion". — 180 Proof

Loving a god is faith, yes, but spirituality is much more than fidelity to a single supernatural entity or idea, and it doesn't necessarily require "faith" - i.e. believing without evidence. Something as simple as awe when beholding the northern lights or being transported by a Schubert chorale can be a spiritual experience - all the way up to a complex relationship with the web of life. — Vera Mont

When Hitchens describes the numinous and the transcendent in the clip above as being (and I am using my own interpretation of the description he gives here) in a sense, 'meta' to 'the material.' Do you think this helps or compliments the 'naturalist' position? Is a 'love' of music or an appreciation of certain architecture, esoteric is some way? Can the concept of the numinous be legitimately used as evidence for something beyond(meta) the material? I think Blair in the clip above tries his best to capitalise on Hitchens use of the terms transcendent and numinous. I think a 'love of music or certain architecture or art' is humanist and not transcendent or numinous(a term derived from the Latin numen, meaning "arousing spiritual or religious emotion; mysterious or awe-inspiring." ). Do you think Hitchens use of the terms transcendent and numinous was actually a wise subterfuge? as it let's the 'immaterialists' in a little, but he then uses that invite to discuss the consequences of letting them in any further, when he talks about the fact that, it would follow that, theistic authorities such as the pope would then have to be fully accepted by all adherents to such religious doctrines.(again, that's based on my own interpretation of what Hitchens says after Tony Blair finished).

Cheers guys. I should have heeded your advice a little more. Perhaps some of those missing bricks are caused by me bashing my head against the wall pointlessly sometimes!

Wouldn't "the questioned" have to exist for us to question it?
If the universe = "All information", sure it may not be able to ask questions, but from it emerged things that can - us. — Benj96

No, because paradox will always be encountered. For example, you cannot reference 'nothing' as you need 'something' to do so, like the word 'nothing.' So 'nothing' has no existent even though we CAN reference the concept through the label 'nothing,' denoting the 'absence of something.' The existence of the god label or the god concept, is no evidence AT ALL for the existence of an actual god. Just like the labels pixie, unicorn or 'holy shit,' is no evidence that any of those have an existent either.

In essence, wouldnt an omnigod as the true reality, the collective sphere of answers, have a purpose - to be the object of observation and questioning by sentience that doesn't yet have all the answers or the whole truth. But can question, and rationalise and experiment with answers. — Benj96

Anything is possible Ben! I suppose! But for me, such musings only offer you a 'landing zone based on your own credence judgement.' YOU, I, WE can only assign a personal credence level to such musing as you are presenting here. I assign close to 0 credence to the idea that if I can imagine it then it has some modicum of existence. An image of my credence level for such a suggestion would be: :roll:

Doing a crime in Gods name is basically an assertion that you have some special deeper understanding of reality or knowledge or truth (assuming such a God as the origin of existence), as for because "they made me" that's irrelevant because they would have technically made everyone and everything. Its a moot point. It doesn't place one's opinion on higher ranking. — Benj96

I think it's deeper that that. If you claim you are acting in accordance with gods will or instruction or 'revealed word,' then you will insist there is no 'crime' involved.
Exodus 22:18 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,' is the BS verse that caused the death of many an accused innocent. Those who did such murder were convicted of no crime at the time.
Theists can also hurt you physically or mentally or economically for many other reasons they believe are fully sanctioned by their god. Your sexual preference, your blasphemy, your apostasy to mention but a few from a large list. Many Christian theists for example do indeed see some of the OT gods heinous acts as on a 'higher ranking' and certainly not criminal. They fully endorse such events as gods reaction to children who called his prophet Elisha 'baldy.':
Kings 2:23-24 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

That's correct. But note that, per relativity of simultaneity, the order of the measurements can potentially differ in each particle's reference frame. The point is that each measurement is local. One measurement doesn't cause or influence the other measurement. — Andrew M

:up: But if the two items 1 light year apart are entangled, then surely "However, if the events are causally connected, precedence order is preserved in all frames of reference." From the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity applies?

Does it make sense to you that our deepest description of matter is the wavefunction? — Art48

How do you know it's not interdimensional vibrating superstrings?
How do you know our universe is not a result of interacting branes?

Meteor strikes and volcano eruptions are not in the sphere of influence of either religion or science, and so that comparison is irrelevant. — Vera Mont

Not at all. Science makes every effort to protect us from both.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/saving-earth-from-asteroids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_of_volcanic_activity

In that regard, religion, which provides tools for the manipulation of minds, is exactly like science. — Vera Mont

Nonsense! Any new threat created via science is due to how some people choose to employ or manipulate new tech. Even the most benevolent theists have their foundations firmly embed in that which is irrefutable described by 180 proof earlier as:

Neither can "religion", which has only ever told us how to tribally conform, servilely obey & scapegoat. — 180 Proof

Science has no doctrinal intent to stealthily capture human minds. It obtains its supporters by honest open means. It does not preach, it calculates. It does not peddle fables as truth or offer us all elixirs in the form of blessed holy waters or faith based bottles of 'doctor good.' It does detailed research using rigor, experimentation and empirical conformation. It is also fully open to completely change its orthodoxy if the evidence compels it to. No religion EVER does that.

The point there is: he doesn't. He's a product of human imagination, and he's used by humans as a benevolent force and a destructive force, because humans have both of those impulses and they express both of those impulses in all their creations. — Vera Mont

True, so it's time we abandoned such irrational BS, yes?

I think you'll be alone in a desert.
Or on the moon. Good luck with that project! — Vera Mont

Nah! I think if you knew I found myself in such a circumstance, you would join the search team looking to rescue me. You would then hail me for my attempts to bring new life to the dessert and/or the moon and you would encourage your children to help me and the many millions who support me in trying to make Carl Sagan's prediction of "We are ready at last to set sail for the Stars!" come true.
Ok, maybe not me personally as I am mostly a spent force but space exploration and development is the inevitable destiny of our species.

I did not appreciate how fogged your thinking was at the beginning of our exchange, even after the kind 'heads up' I received from both @Banno and @180 Proof. You seemed to be open to reason but as our exchange continued, you clearly demonstrated that you choose to refuse the label 'Wall,' because a couple of bricks are missing. This is particularly silly when very valid statements of what may have happened to the missing couple of bricks, are available.
I am a big fan of sceptics, of many levels of intensity, but not extremists like you. Anyone who calls the conservation of energy law 'false' or 'untrue' is not an intellect to be respected. It's a pity you choose to role play sensationalism, using Jordan Peterson style sophistry.

Science via scientists will always strive to improve any shortfalls or imperfections apparent in the very dependable current laws of physics which continue to demonstrate robust predictive power.
I predict your viewpoints on the conservation laws will remain mostly ignored and ridiculed.
Meantime, I will continue to listen to the real physicists regarding the laws of physics and continue to read posts from sensationalists like yourself, as a form of curio and entertainment.