I voted no as time may not be linear.
Can you perceive of a lifeform who experiences existence, not as a continuum?
A lifeform which 'hops' (@EugeneW) between the linear existence of other lifeforms such as us.
It moves between linear consciousnesses, not at will but based on the laws of physics of its own multidimensional space/multidimensional time. It learns from each encounter with linear time corporeal lifeform like us and it also experiences 'periods of continuum' within its own spatial dimensions, where it can interact with its own kind and experience and build within its own world, before it 'phase shifts' again.
Did I just create this lifeform in a mimicry of the god posit by thinking about its existence or am I just thinking like an arrogant theist?

Well, that was an interesting few pages of exchange to read. Nothing new in the theist vs atheist dialogue that I could garnish but the trenches between the two have been dug pretty well.
Its also 'nice' that individuals from both sides do leave their trench now and then and kick a wee common thought about in no man's land, to the entertainment of all those watching from either trench.
I have a couple of questions, neither is of great importance but are of interest to me.
One comes from the repeated posting from @god must be atheist regarding belief/faith/knowledge.
@EugeneW has a personal theory on the structure and workings of the Universe based on his own studies in physics and quantum physics in particular. I think his proposal would be labeled as a hypothesis at this stage, within the rules of the scientific method. In my opinion, he has 'faith' in his hypothesis and he 'believes' it is correct. But for his hypothesis to become a theory, he would need more empirical evidence to support his hypothesis.
So is it the case, that ultimately, any faith-based or belief-based proposal has AT BEST, the same status as a scientific hypothesis and is no more valid than any other human musings such as a faith in the proposal that Harry Potters ancestor, also conveniently called god created the Universe using the spell (first revealed here folks, on this very thread) 'Creatus Universeearse!' (no, the second word of this incantation is not my 'true handle,'). The Jedi religion has been reported (could be fake news) as the fastest-growing religion in the world. Is Jediism related to panpsychism? are such, in my opinion, deserved mockeries of theism deserved?

Humans are naturally attracted to naturalism. @L'éléphant types about dreaming about supernatural human skills such as 'floating' or perhaps 'flying.' Dreams can certainly produce interesting scenarios but for years I have attempted to dream lucidly and I can often force my rational conscience to interrupt my dream and insist that the scenario playing out is BS or boringly based on a film I watched that evening or an issue I am currently worried about or the fact I drank a coffee before falling asleep etc and I can then alter what is being presented by my 'sub conscience' or ID or whatever label you prefer for such, to obey the direction of my conscious. I have almost full recall when I awake, at least from a little before I 'took over' the dream. So, my second question is:
Why are we so attracted to/intrigued by all things 'supernatural?' How many here have ever genuinely experienced anything they cannot explain by natural means when they apply rational thinking?
No supernatural ability has ever stood up to scientific scrutiny, so I conclude that its just a product of human fear. Born from all the scary reptilian screeches we heard when we hid in caves at night because we were unable to fight in the dark! No natural night vision ability. You would think a benevolent god would have at least given us night vision when we lived in the caves, if it had then perhaps we would not have needed to develop the ability to sleep for 8 hours a day.

Ok Yoda! BS is certainly strong with you!

↪universeness You didn't mention 'invisible friend' in your hackneyed philosophy free rant — Bartricks

So, does your invisible friend comfort you?

If your rhetoric is produced from qualifications in the study of philosophy then I am glad that there are other philosophy stalwarts (as demonstrated on the threads on omnipotence) who think your viewpoint on omnipotence is pretty vacant.

Yes, but you are not engaging with any argument. — Bartricks

Nonsense! You haven't got past qualification 1 yet. No omnipotent entity has, can or ever will exist,
anywhere at anytime, except in your mind and in the mind of anyone who subscribes to your viewpoint. That is the full extent of the power of your omnipotent entity. To me, that's almost no power at all.
Omnipotence is a label for a concept that is espoused by you and your like. You need to demonstrate that your concept has power and not just power, but more power than anything else in this Universe can demonstrate. All you have to offer are your musings. The musings of a human mind.
As a source of knowledge, the human mind is not the most reliable, especially if it has been through all sorts of influences since birth. Other human minds have to pick and choose carefully between which musings to listen to and which to disregard. Those who seem to be the most balanced are the ones I would pay most attention to. I would also pay great attention to what they actually do rather than what they say they will do or what they claim to believe.

God. Capital G God. — Bartricks

I tend not to capitalise that which I don't think exists, i try not to at least just like i call your god an it rather than assign it the 'he' gender that you do. I also don't refer it to as a person as yu do.
Which traits of a 'person' do you assign to your god?
Does it eat, sleep, sweat, hate, love, scratch itself when it gets itchy? Does it get ichy?

Unless one is speaking to someone incredibly ignorant, of course. — Bartricks

I am sure you do converse with yourself, often.

Then one has to keep telling them what it means and they think something terribly important hangs on this rather than that they just don't know what they're talking about. You just don't know what you are talking about. Surprise me and draw that conclusion. — Bartricks

There bleats that little arrogant voice in your head again! and you are trying to convince others that you speak for the good in god. :rofl: :lol:
Have too many people been mean to you in the past? is that where all your bile is coming from?

It's what the word is used to mean. — Bartricks

The word has been used in many contexts from its inception. From jealous gods to envious gods to angry gods, vengeful gods, benevolent gods. I think there is a god of just about anything you can mention. Which version of god are you advocating?

Now, I am not going to keep typing out those three words just because you don't know what a word means. — Bartricks

I am not sure that I can pick up all the toys you keep ejecting from your pram. Your god of good won't like your attempts to impersonate the infantile. Try to put your big boy pants on and that way you might receive more high brow responses.

But anyway, someone who characterizes God as a dictator is simply showing conceptual incompetence. — Bartricks

Yet you try to use inane responses to dictate to everyone what god is.
Why do you think quoting words in Latin adds any power to your powerless points?
You are the one displaying vacuous thinking!
You just come across as bitter and twisted.

God is by definition morally good. — Bartricks

Total BS. What evidence are you basing this on?

2. God is morally good — Bartricks

You don't even state which god you are referring to. Your own god? The one that admits to being a 'jealous' god in the Old Testament (or popular book of fables). An omnipotent that suffers from one of its own deadly sins. Which god do you advocate for?

Good Knot gets untied finally — EugeneW

I personally consider Alexander the (not so) great to be a butcher but I did like the story of his encounter with the Gordian knot. If he could untie it, the local powers would submit to him without a fight.
He just chopped it to pieces with his sword. A scientific solution in my opinion. Sharp metal cuts rope!
If true, (probably just another exaggerated Macedonian story) it was a clever moment from an otherwise savage autocrat.

Just an interesting aside. I see the use of :fire: as an indication of your opinion of a sentence or a group of wording in a post in accordance with the online 'Netiquette' guidelines.
:fire: would indicate an accusation of 'Flaming,' that your words are a deliberate attempt to inflame the opinion of others.

You have to return to the time of our emergence from the wilds. The cro magnon's etc.
The original gods were all related to the strange but very important objects they cognised all around them.
The sun, moon, stars, wandering planets, earth, water, forest, wind, thunder and lightning etc.
You have to combine this with the human tendency to view events and make up their own version of what actually happened, taking account of the 'Chinese whisper' effect. The early god(s) and their entourage fables were such an obvious outcome, easily garnished from the most basic understanding of YOUR own psyche. The later fables of Christianity, Islam etc are just more sophisticated versions of earlier fables. Almost nothing from the biggest religions today are original. The stories are much the same only the names have been changed.

I remember a TV show where a Scots reporter spent time with isolated tribal peoples all over the world.
It was a good series. As a final episode, he decided to bring the Chief of a particular tribe and his main entourage (about 8 people altogether) to London. I think this was a 'sensationalist' episode which intended to get that 'overwhelmed' response from these 'simple/backwards folks' visiting London.
Scenes like the tribesmen all chasing after a squirrel in a park, to find out what the hell it was and the moment where the Chief does not appreciate being told that he cant meet 'The Queen'(as they stood outside Buckingham Palace) during this particular visit, even though he considered himself her equal in status. They were then taken inside St Paul's Cathedral. This was the only scene of value to me when, the words of the chief an all his group, were translated, as exclaiming that 'man did not build this place. This place could only have been created by god.'
For me, this demonstrated where gods came from in the mind of early humans. This understandable assumption has been with us ever since, even though we know its completely wrong. Human's built that useless building (give it to the homeless)!
Atheists cannot disprove the existence of god. Theists gravitate to Pascal's wager as the unknown scares them. Fear of what they don't understand is simply more powerful than their ability to rationalise and reason. They will rarely admit this however, For three main reasons.
1. Their economic/social/influential status is dependent on theism.
2. Theism is a fundamental part of their control over others.National or tribal control or even just as a
desirable family moral code.
3. Their memory of the 'fear' aspect of why they became believers has faded and they are convinced it
was never part of their reasoning.

As a person who is interested in philosophy but is not academically qualified in the field, I find the exchanges in this thread 'entertaining.' The logical tennis is 'interesting,' you can follow the logic and you can mentally cast your vote at the end of your personal analysis.
For what its worth, I vote with the dissenters.
@Bartricks will type things like

What's in a word? — Bartricks

and then go on to insist that words like 'omnipotent,' 'god' and even 'god labeled as a PERSON!' are in fact of great significance to the human condition.
I do think any attempts at logical discourse with those who are quite chiseled in their viewpoint, sooner or later reduces to a panto exchange of 'oh yes it is' and 'oh no it isn't.'
After that, reading the exchanges becomes quite boring. I freely admit that my Atheism is quite chiseled.
Chiseled, but easily dispelled, by a scientifically scrutinised appearance/manifestation of the omnipotent. I have little more than scorn to offer such concepts as the Omnis.
I place them alongside my need/will to know the biggest number.
For me, omnipotence is only important in its subjective use. 'Strongest guy in the tribe,' etc.
None of the Omnis are objective, they are all relative and subjective. Same as biggest, fastest etc.
Light speed is fastest but inflation was probably faster as is the expansion rate at the edge of the universe, RELATIVE to us. God remains nothing but a fable for those who fear things that go bump in the night, the concept as presented by human organised religion is pernicious and logically the god presented is a coward and a weakling and simply holds back human progression. But I only type of the god(s) as described by human storytellers, when I type such an opinion. I am not criticising the 'superhero' that YOU believe cares about YOU and protects YOU and YOURS from the evil YOU think exists in YOUR ID(as in Freud). If it gives you comfort then, hey ho, and off to life you go.

Yes. An omnipotent person can kill themselves. Why would you think otherwise? — Bartricks

I think otherwise, for reasons I have already stated above and the fact that I also reject the concept that such an entity has ever or can ever exist. Your vote for is merely equal in status to my vote against.

Those omnigods have got it all! — EugeneW

You cant have more than one Omni, can you? Two omnipotent's would have to fight it out!

I asked the same question! Can an omnipotent god kill himself? Yes! I wouldn't be surprised if he's done that already! — EugeneW

So, if it killed itself, I take it that it just sprung back to life instantly. Any 'in-between' time would be a period of 'oblivion' and in the human definition of oblivion, there is no moment of awareness within which you can enact your own recreation. If the recreation is instant then was this omnipotent actually dead at any point during the time it was killing itself? At least in the way that humans perceive dead.
I have asked these questions of others before, regarding omnipotence, and I usually get the answer 'You are trying to conceive that which the human conscience cannot conceive.' Which is a total killjoy response! In my non-omnipotent opinion.

I asked the same question! Can an omnipotent god kill himself? Yes! I wouldn't be surprised if he's done that already! — EugeneW

Yeah, I don't think we are the originators of such questions towards that which is proposed omnipotent. But my question was less gender-biased than yours. :rofl:
There are many such questions:
Can that which is omnipotent create something more powerful than itself?
Can it reproduce at all?
Would it be aware of its own existence and its own status as omnipotent?
How did it reach this conclusion/gain this knowledge that it became omnipotent, did it 'become' at all?
Is Omnipotence possible without omniscience and omnipresence?

Maybe the Final T.O.E will be The EugeneW equations (but with strings attached!).

Can you imagine? — EugeneW

If you know that the virtual can become 'real' then all those virtual bottles of single malt Scottish whisky's that I am imagining in my head right now! YOU CAN MAKE THEM REAL!
I like your Physics. String theory has never offered me such!

Exactly. That's the virtual electron. — EugeneW

As I said, when I have read stuff involving Feynman diagrams. The 'horizontal line' is always referenced as 'we don't know what happens here.'

Dont worry, Ill do the physics talks! You can make jokes! — EugeneW

It's a deal! By that time you will be able to buy all the single malt whisky's I will need to keep the jokes flowing!

Can't you see from the diagram no virtual photon is involved? Virtual particles are the horizontal lines in the diagram, representing two time ordered states. A wiggly line is a photon (like the two externals) and a straight line an electron. In the middle, betwe4the two vertices, there is an electron. The electron goes round in a circle in time — EugeneW

But there is only one horizontal line in the diagram.
The electron(e-) and positron (e+) are inputs. I took the wiggly lines to be the two 'real' photons emitted and I had always read that no one really knows what's happening in the middle(or horizontal line part) of a Feynman diagram.

I think I have figured it out already. There are no strings. Only closed geometric structures to contain the three basic charges. How does a string vibrate? It easier than they make you think universeness! — EugeneW

Well done EugeneW. All you have to do now is convince the likes of Ed Witten, Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku and Leonard Susskind. If you do, then when you are on TV, I will be able to say to my friends, him!, Hah! I used to chat to him on TPF when he was a nobody, just like me.
Now, he won't even answer my emails! He's just part of the cosmological elite!!! :naughty:

But he writes — EugeneW

Well, if you want, I can provide you with the link to his answer on Quora. You can respond to his answer if you wish.

The problem with string vibration is that no mechanism for the vibrating string is given. It just states the string vibrates — EugeneW

I thought it was the existence of the extra dimensions that caused the 'vibrations.' but if I am wrong then
my bet lies with the musings of Ed Witten, Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku and Leonard Susskind to eventually figure it out before I disassemble.

The professor in your example, gave a wrong explanation for the Feynman diagram shown — EugeneW

He's a Ph.D. who got his doctorate from Huston Uni, not a professor!
Maybe he was just 'summarising.' According to wikipedia, a lot happens during an electron-positron 'collision':

Electron–positron annihilation occurs when an electron (e−) and a positron (e+, the electron's antiparticle) collide. At low energies, the result of the collision is the annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of energetic photons:
e− + e+ → γ + γ
At high energies, other particles, such as B mesons or the W and Z bosons, can be created. All processes must satisfy a number of conservation laws, including:

Conservation of electric charge. The net charge before and after is zero.
Conservation of linear momentum and total energy. This forbids the creation of a single photon. However, in quantum field theory this process is allowed; see examples of annihilation.
Conservation of angular momentum.
Conservation of total (i.e. net) lepton number, which is the number of leptons (such as the electron) minus the number of antileptons (such as the positron); this can be described as a conservation of (net) matter law.

So, what is a quantum? — EugeneW

At the moment, I am most attracted to the posit that it's a multidimensional string vibration.
If I was going to bet, I would bet on some future version of string theory as being the correct one for the fundamental quanta of the Universe.

Can that which is omnipotent and has free will, kill itself?

Einstein said that if you can't explain your physical theory to a six year old, your theory is wrong. Which is something else than Feynman said. I agree with Einstein. — EugeneW

A question on Quora was:

If photon and electron are point-like, how can they collide at all?

An answer was offered by: Masroor Bukhari
Ph.D. in Particle Physics, University of Houston.

"Thank you for asking me this question, which is a great question indeed.

When we refer to a photon or electron as point-like, it is in fact an approximation to simplify our calculations. You have to remember that they both are in reality quantum fields, which have both particle-wave properties by the virtue of their momenta and the usual or de Broglie wavelength "

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html

"What is really important here are two variables, one, energy (which has in it both the rest energy and a momentum) and the wave function.

Once these or any such particles collide, what is really happening that their center of mass are colliding which is at its earnest an interaction between their probability amplitudes and energies. This is what a collision of elementary particles is and its probability is known as a cross section, unlike the macroscopic collisions, such as of a car and a van, which are deterministic and two actual bodies collide.

For instance, when an electron interacts with a positron, it seems like a collision in the lab frame, but in reality it is an electromagnetic interaction (mediated by an exchange of a virtual photon) between the two particles in their COM frame, resulting into emission of two anti-parallel (real) photons. Find appended below a figure of the interaction shown with the help of a Feynman diagram."




I used the link above provided by Mr Bukhari and this link led to other links etc which explained a little more detail about many of the physics points you were trying to make to me. Overall, I think that to fully understand the details of your hypothesis, I would need a much higher grasp of the fundamentals of Quantum physics than I currently have.

I think Dawkins altruism phobia exists because of his desire to have a purely robotic, mechanical universe and to endorse the worst form of natural selection and ubermensch. Maybe he will post on here and enlighten us. — Andrew4Handel

If you watch his online debates and interviews, I think you would find Dawkins to be a humanist, an altruist, and an optimist. He regularly reports his own personal wonder regarding his own conceptions/perceptions of the Universe.

Well if so, then that's down to your, in my opinion, too high a setting of sensitivity.
I take a 'such is life' approach to such and move on.

And it doesn't gnaw at me. I'm the one who gnaws at it! — Alkis Piskas

I think you are imagining that is true!

Einstein said that if you can't explain your physical theory to a six year old, your theory is wrong. Which is something else than Feynman said. I agree with Einstein — EugeneW

Well, I try my best to follow the logic of your typings as best I can but I don't blame you for my lack of physics study. I still very much enjoy our exchanges, you have been a conduit towards my improved understanding of the issues involved.

OK, but as physicists, their imagination would still wander around protons, electrons, quanta and that sort of things. And they most probably are using their imagination --as others scientists-- with the purpose of finding solutions, explanations, etc., about the nature of these things and how they work. In the same way as I use my imagination as a computer programmer to find programming solutions to various problems — Alkis Piskas

Yes but I am asking you about the persistence/gnawing aspect of imagination. Philosophically, where do you think this tendency of imagination to gnaw at you, come from? Or is a gnawing imagination just my personal experience alone?
Why do humans wish to know their origin story? Why willingly submit ourselves to stressful thinking. I can understand doing so, to satisfy our basic needs, food,shelter, health etc but why give such priority to Where do we come from? and why are we here? and what is our ultimate fate?
Why are so many rich people so f*****up? Why do even they, who can take all their physical needs for granted not have more contented lives?
Just my attempt at pushing some philosophical buttons related to this thread, even though the relationship might be rather tenuous.

They would be out of a job! — EugeneW

Not at all, many questions are still to be answered in cosmology. Currently, all that exists are theories regarding the quantum structure and workings of the Universe.

Physics, metaphysics, — EugeneW

Well, I consider physics to be in the purview of science and metaphysics is 'after' physics.

Let me say this. In a Feynman diagram there is a virtual photon between two charged particles. A wiggly line taking care of both changes in momenta of the charged particles. The vertex is where the coupling happens. The virtual photon gives both particles a push or pull. Then it returns to its solitary timeless state, a closed wiggly line (representing a sole virtual photon, uncoupled). — EugeneW

This 'virtual photo' is emitted by one particle and absorbed by the other yes?
The process of emission changes the momentum of one particle and absorption changes the momentum of the other, yes?
Momentum is movement in a direction, yes? so the overall affect of this system is that the particles change direction and speed, yes?
This 'wiggly line' would be the new path (direction) of the particle(s), yes?
Vertex, (a joining point between two straight lines). I take this to be where the paths of the two approaching particles meet.
So the two particles don't actually touch or 'interact' as the virtual photon prevents this.
Perhaps we can accept that by 'returns to its solitary timeless state,' you mean it 'leaves our 3D space'.
I assume your closed wiggly line would just be something akin to:

https://creativepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/IDS_20140520_scallop6.png

The charge of a particle is a measure of the coupling strength and it's a generator to induce local phase transformations of both electrons. This is how the EM field is introduced, but the electron doesn't generate an EM field, that's misleading. The EM field is always there in virtual form and charge couples to it and can even cause real photons to exist (say during the fall to a lower orbital in hydrogen; during inflation, real photons can be pulled out of their virtual state without charge). — EugeneW

Ok in Computing the term 'coupled' can be used as a measure of how two sub-programs or subroutines are dependant on each other. If 'Global variables' or 'the same' variables are used by two subroutines then they are 'coupled' so an error can cause both subroutines to fail. The more independent subroutines are from each other, the less chance there will be of a total program failure.
So, I take it that when two particles become coupled, they become 'interdependent.'
I take it then that 'coupling strength means the level of interdependence two particular particles might have, varies.

I am just trying to demonstrate my attempts to follow the logic of your physics but we are still quite a distance away from some of my previous questions, such as:

So are you saying that the structures that you are calling particles, exist 'outside' of the known 3D of space.

or

Do You mean 'Perpendicular' to 3D space as in 90 degrees to it? So your 4th spatial dimension is not 'wrapped around' every point of 3D space but is 'perpendicular' to every point in 3D space.
Would this be mathematically represented as a 90 degree direction away from a set of three spatial coordinates (so, dimensionless) and one instant/coordinate of time?
So a position in your space would be (x,y,z,t,90)?

It could be that you think that the only reason for me asking such questions is due to my lack of knowledge of the detailed physics involved in your hypothesis and it would take too long for you to explain it to me. If that's the case then say so. I will accept that such could well be the case.

That could be maybe nice, but, as I often mention, I'm bad in Physics! — Alkis Piskas

Don't muse about the physics, comment on the concept/persistence/gnawing of human imagination. When a really intelligent scientists such as Sean Carroll or Carlo Rovelli and many of their contemporaries cannot prove exactly how the Universe works, they turn to their imagination to try to make progress. As do I, even with my very limited physics. Why do I just not accept that I don't know and probably never will in my lifetime?
Why does my Cerebral Cortex pester me with, but why, why WHY?
It seems that many humans just can't accept that 'there is no answer yet,' Why will my imagination not leave me in peace and tell me to just go and have as much mindless fun as I can Alkis, help us!!

On a more serious note, I understand why philosophical purists may be unhappy that those of us who don't prioritise philosophy as 'numero uno' on TPF and we are taking up space in their playground but I hope that we can be seen as a minority who don't take up too much space and we can have our wee exchanges and still make a wee contribution to the 'heavy hitter' philosophical threads as well.

Kis who? — EugeneW

Kismet is just a term that relates to 'destiny' or 'fate' or 'providence' or 'predetermination.
We both seemed to go for 'metaphysics' as an answer to Alkis's complaint.

There are still many questions I asked above you have not answered.
Why won't you tell me what you mean by 'particle coupling,' for example?

Metaphysica. — EugeneW

Kismet!

How does this topic and its description relate to philosophy? — Alkis Piskas

I have admitted in the past to being an interloper here Alkis. I am sure you can find a philosophical aspect, relevant to the thread and if you look at the options when choosing a category for a posted thread, one of them is 'Science and Technology,' which is the one I chose. Scientific debate often prods those more focussed on philosophical aspects to muse on their perceived metaphysical aspects of the dialogue.

It can look smeared out if it hops like mad from one place to another. Prrrrrr.... hophophophophop..... If you imagine the s orbital, it's not everywhere at once but shortly after another it's here, there, there, making up the wavefunction — EugeneW

As I think about your 'hoping' imagery and this 'cloud' or 'smear' appearance, it sounds to me more like vibrating strings! The cloud/smear/hopping appearance may be the visual consequences in 3D of vibrational strings in 10D.