I think I have. I know what space and time are, their basic constituents, the forces between them, the nature of dark matter and dark energy, etc. What more is there to know?) — EugeneW

'I think I know,' is not enough. You need to convince at least a majority of others, otherwise, the question remains unanswered. Do you remember the DIMP guy and the Klein Bottle/Mobious strip guy, they have the same conviction as you and they report it with the same personal fervour. We both know there are also many others with similar convictions about their own hypothesis. You have yet to even publish a paper on your ideas and have it peer-reviewed.

Why favor it? Because I ultimately take the side of Plato and Nietzsche. — Xtrix

I know the basic story (but I am not fluent in either) associated with both and I rate neither. I also don't rate the blood-thirsty Greek or Roman cultures. The Germanic historical cultures are equally steeped in savagery. The enlightenment was a completely different event in my opinion and should indeed be held up as an example of very positive human behavior.

I find much more value and better politics in some early tribal systems where their leader/chief was 'appointed' and was easily removed if they fell out of favour with the majority of tribal members.
But in truth, I don't think we have done very well since we left the wild. Not when it comes to the application of the golden rule of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

I think the fairest human political system has yet to come and I think it's TRUE socialism, which has never been successfully achieved YET. But it exists!
We need to stop giving credence to horrible, failed ancient attempts at creating a decent/benevolent human society with full ability to DEFEND itself and no wish to attack/conquer.
Another member @Garret Travers cites the Epicurean commune as the best human attempt at a decent society. I think this is a good example but by no means the only one. Many ancient tribes seemed to respect each individual in the tribe. Each seemed to be treated fairly and resources were shared, no rich and they respected and looked after their environment.

I am sure your own analysis and your own thinking, free of the influence of the musings of Ancient Greeks or anyone else is also actively considering that which would be a fairer more equitable system for people to live under, based on awareness of those imbalanced political systems applied historically or currently. I personally value this ability in you more than any deference you have to the views of others, ancient, historical or current.

The goal isn't to make everything the same. — Xtrix

The goal is to optimize those differences. I think of basketball as an example -- many different roles of the team. — Xtrix

I agree but care must always be taken to discuss/reason/debate with those members of the team/tribe/nation/planet who feel the need to have superiority/authority/power/privilege compared to their fellows. I don't think EVERYTHING or EVERYONE has to be the same but I do demand economic parity and education/food/drink/heat/shelter/justice/medical care to be rights of birth for all from cradle to grave, forever. If that is established then most of the rest is negotiable. Totalitarianism/autocracy/one-party politics/authority which is difficult to remove, must become as impossible as we can make it.

It takes into account all people, and gives all an opportunity to flourish in their own capacities. Thus, an "aristocracy" in the sense of a class of people -- in Plato's sense, the philosopher-kings -- devoted to the task of governing. But they don't have it easy. It is earned, and through a long period of training -- and through a rather ascetic lifestyle — Xtrix

I understand the definition of aristocracy as 'those most able/suited to govern.' Such would in my opinion be more accurately labeled as a meritocracy. The actions of the historical aristocrats contradicts such a definition of the term. Meritocracy is a rather loose term, its definition would have to be very carefully thought out. I don't think the description of 'those most able/suited to govern,' is good enough.

I reject the word 'class' as a horrible way to catergorise people. I favour a simple old adage. Power of, by and for the people. No group should seek or be given political power until very powerful checks and balances are in place. No position of authority should be given until it can be easily withdrawn by the vote of the people represented. This vote can be called for at any time and removal would be swift, if nefarious behavior has been demonstrated by anyone holding power.

As a 'penniesworth' comment, I am with those who describe Nietzsche as rather narcissistic, a malcontent who was probably a little or a lot, mad. I am a malcontent myself but only because I see such an unjust human global society at the moment. I don't think I suffer from the same skewed self-image as Nietzsche.

All systems tend to oligarchy.... combined with.... noblesse oblige. — ChatteringMonkey

To me, such attitudes are born of exasperation with skewed historical data. Remember it's often the victors that write history.
In many parts of the globe, 'the lot' of the majority of people has improved only due to socialist/humanist movements that have assaulted unjust power bases such as aristocracies/plutocracies/autocracies. The idea that humanist or socialist intentions will ultimately tend towards a privileged, powerful, rich minority who control the lives and opportunities/fate of a poor, uneducated majority who are invariably abused and exploited by that privileged few, is a skewed viewpoint and one that makes me fume to say the very least.

The idea that the privileged few, feel (your nobless oblige) and demonstrate responsibility towards the underprivileged majority is utter nonsense. We would the French have chopped the heads off of such a noble, benevolent group. Why did the Russian and English do much the same. Why have Kings and aristocracies been almost wiped out globally? The regressive and backward house of Lords in the UK and the embarrassing 'honours' system is the best example of the remaining residue of global aristocracy and even that is on the wane.

Now we nominally have democracy, but in practice power seems to be in the hands of a few capitalists anyway — ChatteringMonkey

So we continue the fight against such realities wherever it exists, we don't become apathetic surrender monkeys!

So even though the system was supposed to be something else, we still ended up with some type of oligarchy.
The difference then is that now the oligarchy consists of nameless capitalists who have no public image or values to uphold, because 'technically' they aren't even in power — ChatteringMonkey

The lesson to be learned here is that we need sufficient checks and balances to prevent this.
We simply need a system where NO ONE can EVER EVER become a millionaire or a billionaire. NO ONE can occupy a position of power unless they can be easily removed if they show any nefarious behavior. NO ONE can own land. Get rid of currency.

Aristocrats at least has a reputation and values to uphold by virtue of the official position they hold. — ChatteringMonkey

What?? Give me a historical or current example of a well-behaved aristocratic family who were benevolent/altruistic/philanthropic towards the majority and I will provide many, many other examples of historical aristocratic nasties.

If we need to have an oligarchy, aristocracy would seem to be one of the better versions of that. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't accept either! An Aristocracy is as vile or indeed viler than a Plutocracy. I will continue to fight tooth and nail against both.

It says 'loosely based'. Rovelli certainly has the physics part down, but not having read his works, I don't know if he's explored the philosophical implications of his ontology, such as that of identity for example. — noAxioms

I don't recall much mention of any philosophical aspects/consequences of his theories, that he discussed in his YouTube offerings but I was too busy trying to gain some understanding of his scientific musings.

Here is an audio podcast between Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli. It is an episode from Sean Carrolls 'Mindscape' series and is titled: Episode 2: Carlo Rovelli on Quantum Mechanics, Spacetime, and Reality.

A rock can take a measurement and collapse the wave function of some non-rock system just fine, all without actually observing or knowing anything. — noAxioms

I have no idea what you mean by this? A rock can take a measurement? in what sense?
I assume you don't mean this literally but I don't get it, if it was meant as a metaphor for something else.
I assume you just mean that you don't need the presence of a human conscience to collapse the wave function of a process such as the interference pattern produced by the double split experiment or entanglement.

With that we seem to both agree. It implies that a wavefunction has a location (which I would not have intuitively suggested), and that a wavefunction of a distant system relative to 'here' is nevertheless 'here'. — noAxioms

Well, a wave function will produce a waveform, will it not? and all waveforms moving in 3D space will produce a worldline as it traverses space from its origin. Like a drop of water in an ocean that will cause only a localised disturbance and then settle as it dissipates its energy. It does not affect the entire ocean. I don't know what you mean by the wavefunction of a distant system relative to 'here' is nevertheless 'here'. light waves from a distant star still have to traverse the distance between here and its origin, which is why we see what was, not what is. maybe I am being a bit dense here but I am not following your logic very well.

I would not have said that spatially systems can 'interact' since I consider a system to be essentially an event and not say a worldline like Rovelli implies. We obviously differ on this point, but I can drive the worldline view to contradiction, a philosophical problem which seems not to concern Rovelli, being a physicist mostly interested in empirical consistency.
Two events cannot 'interact' since that would require each to be in the other's past light cone — noAxioms

I think I understand your words but then how do particles 'interact.' Perhaps can explain to me what you mean more clearly. I often turn to him, regarding cosmology stuff that I dont fully grasp.

Did I suggest anything along those lines? — noAxioms

Not about Rovelli, no I don't think you did. You stated that observers cant fully understand a system that they are a part of so it's that which I disagree with. A system which is capable of successful self-diagnosis and self-maintenance would have to know how all of its parts worked individually and as sub-systems and as a whole system. If this can be achieved electronically then it must be possible in the case of the universe. I am not claiming that we have produced such an electronic system yet but we are getting much better at it.

Perhaps you can recommend some Rovelli vids, even though I don't usually get my science from videos. Then I can point out places where I might not agree with Rovelli. — noAxioms

Here is another one you might like that I watched a few months ago:

If science has closed all gaps, what else can we conclude? — EugeneW

But science has not closed all the gaps yet as unanswered questions remain.

Then maybe a voice in our head is proof. — EugeneW

I hear no voices in my head that I cannot identify.

They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. — Xtrix

The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time?

How would adequate proof look like? — EugeneW

That's for the god(s) to decide, not my problem!

You seem to identify religion with powerful gods threatening people. — EugeneW

Not necessarily but the main religious doctrines do.

Maybe they created the universe accidentally. And just moved on after the accident, without caring for the ones involved in the accident. — EugeneW

Well, I would describe this as a deistic viewpoint.

God is a completely illogical posit to me for all of the reasons put forward by atheists. Too numerous to list here. Its only hope that I can see, is, as an emergent label for an emerging universal panpsychism.
But I only have the smallest attraction to the logic behind this. I hate to use this tired old adage but we will just have to agree to disagree.

The universe itself is proof. Dunno why they don't show themselves. Maybe they do but we don't see — EugeneW

For me, this is just not adequate proof.
I have never found 'operatic choral music' intimidating or theistically threatening.
Here's a much better one:

How does one know there is no god behind a lightning strike? — EugeneW

You can go with the image of Thor holding a lightning bolt and deciding when he wants to throw them into our atmosphere or you can go with the scientists who explain such via electrical discharge due to natural meteorological effects. I choose the scientists as I am 99.999% absolutely convinced that gods don't exist. It would be such a simple task for it/them to prove me and all atheists wrong.
So why /doesn't it/don't they? Perhaps you or the pope or the archbishop of anywhere or the recent member of TPF and ardent theist, Joe Mello could ask it/them.

I mean an artificial vessel. The Bolzmann universe encompasses infinite regression, which solves nothing.. It was invented by Bolzmann in relation to entropy. If the whole universe could exist as a fluctuation then in that fluctuation a thermal equilibrium would evolve which could result in a fluctuation of a universe, etcetera. Brains just involve a process leading to them and any attempt to create them must involve the whole universe. — EugeneW

But the artificial vessel would replicate the function of the human head and body minus the brain. It would be 'brain ready.' I take it that you believe such a construct is impossible. I don't think it is, given enough time and relevant scientists.

Yeah, I found the Boltzmann grain posit interesting but unconvincing.

Isn't it always better to bet they exist? What you gotta loose? — EugeneW

That was Pascal's point exactly. I require proof! I don't fear the traditional theistic threats.
I have personally called them out very often, including on this site.
If god will manifest and submit to scientific scrutiny, then I will change my viewpoint, if the results confirm it as having demonstrated all the necessary omni's
If it can't even do that then It has no right to ask for belief.

Hope nobody heard or saw this. Did Pascal gamble with his life regarding the existence of gods? How can you wager your life on that? If they don't exist, I will drop dead? If they do exist then the other might drop dead? How can you know who wins the wage? — EugeneW

I think the wager was your investment in belief in God despite all the arguments against such belief. I think that's what you do. You know the god story is highly unlikely but you have laid your bet by your version of theism in a similar way to Pascal. This is of course only my humble opinion on your theism.
To me, you are not a THEIST, you are a theist (this site does not allow you to alter text to point 6, very small text size, so you will just have to see the very small text in your head, perhaps right beside a tiny wee man (god) with a white beard)

Pascal was just suggesting that it is wise to bet that God exists, just in case it does, because the punishment for not believing was so bad.

But I know a brain can't be contained in a vessel, no matter what SF fantasies show. — EugeneW

What is a human head, if not a vessel? If we replicate every system inside the head and body that supports the brain then I don't see why not, given enough time and scientists.
You also might find the concept of the Boltzmann brain interesting if you don't already know about it.
have a wee look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

It doesn't really speak to my transhuman points but it's interesting as well as relatively debunked, I think.

It is claimed that robots and AI are the next step in evolution. — EugeneW

I only like the evolution word when used in the natural sense, I don't like it applied to human scientific endeavors. Creating sentient AI is a whole different debate. I was talking about human life extension by transhuman methodology/technology. Not human simulations such as robots or androids.

What is Pascal's wager? — EugeneW

Shhhhhhhh, your on a philosophy site. Pascals wager is a philosophy basic.

As long as no one else can hear this, let me whisper the address below at you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

Have a wee look. shhhhhhhhh

In truth I suspect that everything is merely a creation of my imagination in an effort to keep me amused. There is nothing until I perceive it to exist, or to have existed, in order to enrich my experience of my imagined reality. Time is meaningless as there is no context in which it would be valid. There is only me.

Imaginationism — Book273

Each of us can make the same claim. It's just solipsism and solipsism is nonsense in my opinion.

Maybe God will show up to transport us instantaneously.. — EugeneW

These are just fantasies, like gods are — EugeneW

Make up your mind......

Difference being that gods are real while these fantasies stay fantasies. — EugeneW

You continue to play with Pascal's wager. Bet On...Bet Off...Bet On...Bet Off. The Karate Theistic Kid (Only kidding!)

That which has been invented often began as someone's fantas(tic)/(y) idea.

Are you serious? Don't get carried away by those ideas. The next step in evolution is not how we engineer it — EugeneW

Very serious! I don't get carried away, I might get intrigued and become hopeful however. Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow! Any scientific/technological/chemical/biological idea that forms in a human mind should be heard, just like your ideas as to the structure and workings of the Universe. How would you respond to someone who said 'are you serious?' after you explained your ideas in detail.
They can always respond with 'I think you are getting carried away, Prove your idea is correct!' I hope your response would be, well I cant...YET.

I think it is natural that our science would outrun evolution and natural selection. A spear was created by humans and that sped up our ability to kill other creatures for meat. A spear did not evolve. Same with the electronic technologies. It seems natural to me that we will eventually merge with electronics and become transhuman (cyborg) for starters. Its already arrived to some extent, pacemakers, cochlear implants, small electronics physically connected to the brain, robotic/prosthetic limb replacement to name but a few developments. I don't think it's completely inaccurate to refer to someone with a pacemaker, which keeps them alive, as an early transhuman or cyborg.

Alcubierre's drive and wormholes don't work, even in theory. — EugeneW

If two ideas fail, people conceive new ideas.

A transhuman? Our follow up in evolution? — EugeneW

More like a human merging with electronic/quantum systems and genetic engineering rather than any significant contribution from natural evolution. A human brain in a sustaining cybernetic body, a human consciousness that can be stored and transmitted from one location to another at light speed or greater.
Maybe from one cybernetic container to another. Perhaps the remake of 'Battlestar Galactica,' type idea that when you die, your consciousness is just automatically dowloaded into another of your stored clones.
All the current sci-fi suggestions are predictions of possible future technologies. Most will probably be unrealised but some will be. A lot of StarTrek tech is now all around us. The computer pad, video phone calls, a flip-top communicator etc.

My posts about time dilation were a digression from how it was being used in the OP.
I was merely presenting the implications of the extremity of the formula for real humans traveling close to light speed not unthinking particles. I think it's fascinating that this formula suggests that if a future human or perhaps even a future transhuman travels away from Earth for 200 years round trip, at 0.1 meters per second, slower than light speed. The Earth probably won't be there when they return. If that's the case then we do need to find a way to get from interstellar or intergalactic planet A to planet B which does not involve trying to directly traverse the physical distance between them.

I'm not trying to convey Rovelli's views. I've not read the work you name. But the view is at least loosely based on his concept, but driven to its logical conclusion. — noAxioms

I think we have been mostly talking past each other. I thought you were narrating Rovelli's views as your first response to me stated:

That's a poor representation of Rovelli's interpretation — noAxioms

I think Rovelli's posit that the measurement problem and waveform collapse is a localised phenomena which only occurs between interacting systems X and Y and is not a 'Universal/objective effect,' is very interesting. The waveform does not collapse from the reference point of the whole Universe.

I don't think Rovelli has ever suggested that the structure and fundamental workings of the Universe are unknowable because those who are trying to discover such are part of the Universe they are trying to explain.

I've not read the work you name — noAxioms

This is an example of what I mean by 'talking past each other' or misunderstanding.
I have WATCHED his youtube videos, his lectures and his discussions with Sean Carroll etc.
I haven't READ any of his publishings.

Aaaaarrggggh! I mean 7,745,966
A bloomin, flippin comma was required instead of a bloomin, flippin dot

Sorry, the number 7,745,966,6930 in my calculations should have been typed as 7,745.966
The 6930 is after the decimal point and can be ignored.

Anyway, last Thursdayism is surely down to that pesky Thor, it's his day after all.
Perhaps the rest of the avengers can prevent Thor from 'dissin' our 'Midgard' layer of the Universe with his 'Thorsdayism!' Freaking superhero gods!! More trouble than they were ever worth. Just as well that they don't exist!

I have no idea what age they would be in relation to you at their point of return.
— universeness

If you travel at lightspeed through the galaxy for 8.673 years around the planetary system at near the speed of light and return on Earth, you will have aged about one week. So many passed Thursdays vs. one — EugeneW

I was talking about the more interesting examples:
Consider the formula again:

observer time = proper time/square root(1- (velocity/speed of light)^2

Consider a currently, good human lifespan of 100 years.

So the observers time is 100 years.

Perhaps one of our maths experts such as jgill could confirm my calculations here, in case I have blundered:

Consider velocity of the spaceship moving away from the Earth based observer as 299999999 meters per second. This would be 1 meter per second slower than light speed at 300000000 meters per second.

When I popped these values into the formula (I used the calculator app on my laptop as it offers many more digit places than my scientific calculator), I got the answer 1,224,644 years as the amount of time passed for the observer. Only 100 years would have passed for the people on the spaceship.
Now the spaceship still has to return to Earth, so, the round trip time for the observer would be 2,449,289 years.

Now lets use 299999999.9 for the velocity of the spaceship so 0.1 meters per second slower than light speed rather than 1 meter slower. Using these numbers in the formula and the same 100 years of observer life. We have a round trip journey time (from the standpoint of the observer) of 7,745,966,6930 years. (for the people on the spaceship, it would be 200 years). This is quite a jump for such a small increase in the velocity of the spaceship.

The maximum number of places I could enter using my laptop calculator app was 23 places after the decimal point so I could enter 23 nines after the number 299999999.

This gave me a round trip journey time for the observer of
774,596,669,241,483,377 years. So the Earth/Sun and solar system would be long gone in the 200 years of travel time for those on the spaceship.

Unless I have made mistakes in my calculations or units used, this is a serious mind f***.
If we consider a few thousand years of observer time I think we reach a point that the Universe ends before the spaceship traveling within it can return to its starting point.

I sent this question to 'askanastrophysicist,' ages ago and they pointed out the following:

1. You have not considered acceleration and deceleration times which would affect your numbers but not in a very significant way.

2. It is highly unlikely that a spaceship could reach the velocity increments you suggest as the energy input required would be vast to allow mass to travel at such velocity. As you get closer and closer to light speed, the extra input energy required becomes much more vast.

3. But yes, in theory, what you suggest is valid, time dilation is weird, isn't it!

Sorry about that 'messed up' last sentence, it should have been:

I do/would not wish to infringe/restrict/constrict your turn of phrase and I don't think the energy spent, in clarifying your meaning, was poorly spent

I do think that I’m using the words in precisely the way you outlined. Meaning that I use the word “sweet” to say that the truth is the best thing. I don’t even know what feeling “sweet” would mean — Average

'Lost in translation' is often an issue. We often call people 'sweetheart,' or we might say that an outcome was 'sweet,' to indicate we are friendly towards the person or are 'happy' about the outcome.
This is what I assumed when you suggested that "truth is the sweetest thing there is." It may be better if you offer clarification for those of us who are a little more 'literalist.'
In my phraseology, I would need something like:
'Truth itself is vital and of greatest importance, regardless of the fact that some truths may cause a bitter reaction is some people', rather than your The truth is never bitter my friend. It is the sweetest thing there is
I do would not wish to infringe/restrict/constrict your turn of phrase and I don't think the energy spent is clarifying your meaning was poorly spent.

Perhaps our disagreement is only on how each of us might emotionally react to a particular truth.
My reaction to some truths, such as the leader of my political party being a closet capitalist. A Labour party in which I invested my youthful hope for a socialist country. Tony Blair, who was claimed as the greatest achievement of a creature I truly hated (Maggie Thatcher), was indeed a bitter truth.

That bitterness did make me fight for true socialism with even more determination, ever since however.
I think Thatcher created many more socialists that any other force in the UK, so I think her achievement of Tony Blair has been eclipsed by the number of dissenters against capitalism that she created.

Maybe people are bitter but the truth is not — Average

Some truth can cause bitterness in people, I don't think that makes the person bitter overall.
I think it is a reaction of strength, as the reaction can often result in renewed determination as I have described above. I don't want to feel 'sweet' in such situations, that sounds weak and defeatist.
Unless you are using 'sweet' in the same sense as the modern use of 'wicked' as something good and 'cool.'

But let me ask you this would you prefer to be blissfully ignorant or the opposite? — Average

I am not an advocate of 'ignorance is bliss,' but I thought we were discussing individual reaction to truth rather than being ignorant of truth.

Hello, thanks for the welcome. I have enjoyed reading some of your exchanges in the shoutbox.
Yeah, I love maths, but I have only experienced it to second-year undergrad level within a Scottish Uni.
I taught it to advanced higher level for 5 years in Scottish secondary schools and then I was switched to teaching Computing Science full time. I did so for a further 25 years before taking early retirement.
I wish I had as good a command of maths as TPF members like Jgill.

I won’t criticize you or call you silly for believing that the truth can be bitter. — Average

Well, I hope you took my 'silly' criticism as merely my opinion on your viewpoint, nothing more.
It's your magnanimous choice if you don't wish to call my viewpoint silly.
I repeat that it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to feel bitter about certain truths they have had to face in their lives and I think they should not take your viewpoint that 'all truths are sweet.'

You typed:

The universe (as a whole) doesn't need an origin story, lacking anything that measures the universe. That would require an external observer. — noAxioms

I took this to mean that only an external observer of the Universe could make measurements/perform experiments on the Universe (as a whole) and by doing so, discover its structure and workings.
I took it that you were basing this view on your other view that internal measurers (human or electronic sensor) cannot gain the necessary data as they are part of the Universe.

You then typed in your last response to me:

By definition, there can be no such observer. Any such observer would be part of the universe.
I grant that similar to a simple quantum system in a thought experiment, the structure of the entire universe can be considered from 'outside', but that's different than measuring. No wave function collapse results from objective analysis of a wavefunction of some closed system. — noAxioms

Are you using the argument that no observer can exist 'outside' of our Universe?
If that is the case then are you saying we can never know the origin story of the universe based on the points you make that an outside observer would be needed and such cant exist and internal observers cant do what's required and this view is Carlo Rovelli's viewpoint. Is that what you are saying?

If an observer can be conceived as 'outside' of the Universe then how would they be part of it?
That makes no sense to me.
What evidence are you calling upon that demonstrates that objective analysis of a waveform is a closed system? What if there are > 3 dimensions or the multiverse is real, or the Universe is layered, or time is not linear and is in fact, multidimensional etc, what are you defining as 'objective' and 'closed'?

I am trying to follow a smooth line of logic in your narration of 'The structure and workings of the Universe,' as suggested by Carlo Rovelli. I have tried to narrate the basics of his viewpoint as I conceive it, based on the youtube videos he offers. You may have a better understanding of his viewpoint than I do. I am merely trying to understand what you are presenting based on my limited grasp of the cosmological theories involved.

Ok EugeneW! I defer to your more detailed knowledge of the topic in comparison with mine.

That's a poor representation of Rovelli's interpretation. It makes it sound like humans or things that 'observe' make any difference, which couldn't be further from what he says — noAxioms

Ok, It could well be that I was not attentive enough when watching Rovelli on YouTube.
So, I assume you are saying that according to Rovelli, it's not the observer that's causing the waveform collapse it's the local interaction between x and y.

Exactly, except I'd not have used the word 'observer'. Measurer maybe. — noAxioms

An observer can measure, whether it's human or sensor, I think you are making an unimportant distinction here.

The universe (as a whole) doesn't need an origin story, lacking anything that measures the universe. That would require an external observer. Internal interaction only results in self-consistent state.
Rovelli says no system can measure itself, which doesn't mean I can't see my arms, but it means the cat in the box cannot collapse its own wave function relative to the observer outside the box. The live cat cannot measure dead parts despite being in superposition of being dead and alive. — noAxioms

Humans desire an origin story for themselves and therefore for the Universe. I think that desire is significant even though I agree with all of Carl Sagan's great demotions.
I understand your narration of Rovelli's view of Schrodinger's cat from the reference frame of the cat but you said earlier that only an observer from outside of the Universe can make measurements on the Universe that would reveal its true structure (is that what you are saying?). Does this not suggest that an observer outside of the box containing Schrodinger's cat should be able to know if the cat is dead or alive or is it merely the fact that the observer outside the box cannot see through the box?
If so, then surely you are assuming that anything outside of the Universe would have an ability to interact with the Universe. As I have said before, my expertise is computing not cosmology but cosmology is of great interest to me.

Does the term skeuomorphic ontology mean anything to you? Any sense can be applied to both of these words — Watchmaker

Such terms are easily looked up using internet searching.
From the internet, Skeuomorphs are typically used to make something new feel familiar.
My career is in computing and we use emulators so I am familiar with this concept.
Computing also uses ontology all the time as a way to group and categorise data into types.
So I would assume you are describing a method of categorisation into familiar types.

So the liar's paradox is categorised as a paradox found in the mathematical sub-topic of propositional logic. Paradoxes don't happen in real-life, in real human experiences. They are merely constructs of mathematical logic. You don't get a barber who won't shave themselves or a liar who makes the statement 'I am a liar' as no human being tells lies exclusively. Other paradoxes such as 'The only true fact is that there are no true facts,' are also flawed as there is no rigorous definition of the term 'true fact.'
I have no idea if this relates to what you are trying to say by using the term 'skeuomorphic ontology,' but I gave it a shot anyway. Perhaps it would be easier if you were less cryptic about the points you are trying to make.

The truth is never bitter my friend. It is the sweetest thing there is — Average

I think parents who face the truth of losing a child due to the current actions of Russian soldiers in Ukraine are justified in feeling bitter about such truth.

I don't compare my level of bitterness towards Tony Blair and the vile Maggie Thatcher with the scenario I describe above but statements like "The truth is never bitter," is just 'silly' in my opinion.

Isn't it that we could slow the v to zero meters (or miles) per second. The result is still zero, but not because velocity is equal to light speed. Trying to understand this part — Caldwell

No, if v=0 then the v squared divided by c squared part of the formula would be 0, BUT inside the square root part of the formula we have 1- so we would have 1-0 if v=0. This would give the answer 1.
So if v=0 then in the example, the twin sister Tara would be at rest so the observer time = proper time.
No time dilation, both clocks would read the same time in the case of v=0.

The most interesting issue about the time dilation formula is if you consider v at a value ever closer to the speed of light, say 99. 99999999999999999999999999999999% light speed.
The closer you get to light speed (add many more 9's after the decimal point,), the bigger the time dilation becomes. From this, you can show that from the point of the observer, the 'proper time' passed reaches a value bigger than most of the predicted lifespans of the Universe! I don't get that one!

Nothing can be faster than speed of light. Hence, Star Trek — Caldwell

Not under normal circumstances no, you are correct but, It is suggested by many scientists that during the short time of 'inflation,' the Universe expanded at faster than light speed. It is also suggested that as the rate of the acceleration of the Universe increases, relative to us, its 'edge' will be moving at faster than light speed.

There may be a way to get from planet A in our galaxy to planet B without having to directly traverse the distance between them but how to do so is, for now, and probably for many thousands of years yet, pure sci-fi.

I forgot to include couple of links:

https://www.compassonline.org.uk/
https://peoplesmomentum.com/

I am not a member of either of these groups, yet, but I have been keeping up, particularly with the 'compass' group and I like the majority of what they are doing so far. I like the momentum political movement as well but they are strongly connected to the UK Labour party (of which I used to be a member). I left the Labour party when they dropped clause 4.
Tony Blair set the labour party back 100 years in my opinion. I was very disheartened when the vile Maggie Thatcher called Tony Blair her greatest achievement. That was a very bitter truth for me.

What organizations have you found to be working on these issues? — Xtrix

A great thread!
In the UK, there are two groups I know of called 'momentum' and 'compass,' who are trying to create a new progressive politics which tries to address many of the issues you raise. They both support Universal Basic Income (UBI) for example.

It's Thursdayism -- time dilation. — Caldwell

Here is an example of the use of the time dilation formula, based on an example I took from https://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/time_dilation_formula/222/

Clicking on the link will give you the aspects of special relativity involved and the workings of the formula.

observer time = proper time/square root(1- (velocity/speed of light)^2)



v = velocity is in meters per second
c = speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s)

Tanya boards a spaceship, and flies past Earth at 80% of the speed of light. Her twin sister, Tara, stays on Earth. At the instant Tanya's ship passes Earth, they both start timers. Tanya watches her timer, and after she sees 60 seconds have passed, she stops it. At that instant, how much time would Tara's timer say has passed?
If we use the formula, Tanya observes that at 60 seconds, her sister Tara will observe that 100 seconds have passed.

But this formula also shows that if the velocity was at light speed then the bottom line of the equation becomes square root(0), which is 0. We then have observer time = proper time / 0.
This is an infinity!

So from an observer's point of view, a person traveling away from them, in a spaceship at light speed, would not age at all, but I think logic would suggest, that in their own reference frame, they would age, and they would live their normal life span within the spaceship and its reference frame. If at some point they traveled back to you at light speed, they would -re-enter your frame of reference. I have no idea what age they would be in relation to you at their point of return.

This of course cannot happen, as it's impossible for the velocity of any mass/spaceship to reach light speed. Mass cannot travel at light speed.

In Star Trek, it is suggested that if light speed or greater can be achieved then the mass involved would be 'enveloped in a warp bubble,' and would effectively be traversing the warp or the folded space, not the actual physical distance between positions A and B.

Time dilation is therefore not evidence of last Thursdayism in the sense that it cannot compress the proposed 14 billion years of observed universal time into a few days, using any accurate reference frame or time dilation equation I am aware of but my knowledge of astrophysics is quite quite limited.

I take more of a relational view, like RQM (Rovelli). — noAxioms

X exists relative to Y iff Y measures X. But there is no meaning to X exists or Y exists since it isn't expressed as a relation. — noAxioms

I'm not sure I fully understand your algebraic/relational argument here but are you talking about Rovelli's proposal regarding the measurement problem?
The collapse of the wave function due to the act of observation?
I think he suggests that this affect is only local, between the two systems X and Y involved.
The waveform only collapses from the standpoint of the observer not from the standpoint of the Universe.
Is this what you are referring to? and do you mean you cannot find out the origin story of the Universe by the act of experimental measurement?