I hold to "none of the above, because we don't know the answer".
It may not be 'sexy', but isn't this the only honest answer? — Theorem

A very reasonable position to take. One that allows people to just 'move on' and try to concentrate on the areas of science and philosophy which we can advance. We should never abandon the search for the true origin story but we have hardly learned how to crawl towards correct knowledge let alone walk or run towards it. We just don't have the know-how or the technology yet. Only our best geniuses can move us any distance at all, towards the correct origin story and I for one, am not in that league.

I was thinking perhaps it would be true (or false for that matter) if you just stopped and didn't ask the next question in the infinite regression that the liars paradox creates — Watchmaker

Such an action on your part is an example of what I am trying to say. Your act of will would be effective in that it would allow you to prevent that which cannot yet be understood from having a possible detrimental affect on your psyche. In my opinion, this is a sensible/logical/valid/healthy response until new knowledge is gained. Constant contemplations of infinity has sent some deep thinkers mad.
I don't believe in infinities, but I cannot currently explain them so I acknowledge them, I don't spend time thinking about them, Impose a personal value and I move on and I think about that which I can conceive/perceive.
I also don't care if anyone calls me a 'cowardly thinker' for not 'smashing my brain' against 'infinity/paradox/impossible/immovable meeting irresistible etc,' I prefer my mental health and I don't care about the opinion of such people.

I think that it is valid, by 'act of human will' and within an 'instant/measure of time' to 'observe' a proposal of logic such as 'this statement is false' and impose, using a simple measure of personal preference, any ONE of the values true/false/paradox and then just move on without causing any important detrimental effect on the rigor of your current scientific or philosophical deliberations.

Have a good time — EugeneW

Thanks, It was a nice wee evening but everyone is down due to Putin's War on the Ukrainians.

One more thing though. Please don't see me as a god lover or a preacher of the gospel. — EugeneW

I don't, I see you as someone who is taking part in Pascal's wager.

Fair enough, it's Saturday night! Beer Time again! have a good evening EugeneW!
Thanks for sharing your views with me!

Don't be so anthropocentric!

I missed an intended few sentences, so:

I don't think 'wants to' comes into it, in a similar sense to you not being asked if you wanted to exist before you did. Murphy's law may be Universal. "If it can happen, it will. So, if the Universe could do as you suggest then it already would have, but not just to one of us, as that would be rather inefficient. It would have 'shown herself' to all of us, in the same way as the theist god would appear to all of us if it existed and could.

But if the universe wants to become self aware, wouldn't it be best to show herself to us? — EugeneW

I don't think 'wants to' comes into it, in a similar sense to you not being asked if you wanted to exist before you did. Murphy's law may be Universal. "If it can happen, it will."

How can the universe exist without a kind of intelligence that has blown or screamed it into existence? The same can be asked of gods, but an eternal intelligence seems more plausible than intelligence evolving in a non intelligent universe. How can the laws of nature and the stuff in it obeying them have come to be by themselves? — EugeneW

These are tough questions. I think we need that million years of scientific thinking that I mentioned, at least, before any answers that are more than pure conjecture become possible.

I am currently, personally more convinced of intelligence evolving/progressing within a Universe that had no intelligence for most of its proposed 14 billion year existence than I am convinced by the posit of an intervening omniscience who write tablets of commandments, dictates contradictory stories to chosen ones and parts waters.

As I said, If God/Fred is an emergent omniscience in this Universe by way of the combined intellect of all lifeforms wihin it networking with each other when all questions have been answered, and this has all happened before, and our Universe is actually a reproduction of another omniscient universe/God/Fred, and reality is actually a multiverse of omniscient Fred's all reproducing, then fair enough. Perhaps this even gives some value to a monotheistic deist position. Again, such musings, are all pure conjecture.
We and many many others will think about this stuff until we die but I predict that every human alive today and their children and their children and..... will be dead before we get anywhere near the answer. Perhaps when the transhumans arrive then who knows if that will speed things up or not.

I think I understand your name now. Universeness. We all have it. I think Fred shows itself to everybody. To all creatures. Not only me — EugeneW

Ha Ha, you always seem to get a wee 'god' image in there somehow!

What three claims do you mean? Doesn't the mental has to be unstable for the fighting of standard models, which bear mental stability? — EugeneW

Iconoclastic thinkers tend to be unstable by nature almost. — EugeneW

Its often said that genius and madness are close siblings. There are many examples of very talented people who were also slightly mad. The music/film/book world has many examples. Science and philosophy have many examples as well, from Pythagoras to Nikolai Tesla. I am not suggesting such people have never made serious contributions to their field but I just feel more comfortable with what I see as 'rational discourse.' I would accept an accusation of personal bias or narrow-mindedness on this however.

The three claims I was trying to highlight were:
1. The religious chosen one or christ complex. Real People from Joan of Arc to Aleister Crowley and Rasputin have claimed to be 'chosen to know what the rest of the human race does not know.'
2. A 'conscious universe' choosing an individual at random to reveal its workings and structure to.
3. A conscious universe choosing an individual as a 'reasoned' choice to reveal its working and secrets to.
I cannot prove that these are not true claims and that anyone who makes such claims are slightly mad, but I do think such claims are highly umlikely.

I am not saying you fit into any of these three descriptions in accordance with your words:

couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature? — EugeneW

I was just asking you to explain your words above, with a little more detail.

I prefer terms like 'thinking outside the box,' 'lateral thinking,' 'creative thinking, etc' rather than the image of a Universe that can reveal its workings to individuals. But maybe I am being rather conventional.

Serendipity is almost omnipresent in science or technology. The pigeon shit on the reflector (leading to CMB radiation detection), the photographic plate left in the drawer by Becquerell (I suspect though he knew about radioactivity from his dad who, when B was a kid, saw radioactivity already, but he didn't know; B did and set it all up for Nobel prize money; the sneaky bastard!). Or Fleming, the discovery of teflon, of graviton strings, Feigenbaum universality (on his pocket calculator...), serendipity elements in PDE's, Archimedes, the 7 bridges of Koningsberg, the microwave oven, etc. etc. What discovery doesn't involve it? — EugeneW

Yep, all good examples of serendipity in science but I don't think serendipity is involved in every scientific discovery but I haven't read every word regarding how maxwell arrived at his equations or how Boyle arrived at his law. You may be correct that at some point each would say 'I was lucky here because......

Well, and I know it maybe sounds psychotic or cranky, couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature? — EugeneW

Well do you mean only you? from a religious style 'chosen one' perspective or as a random happenstance or as the Universe's deliberate 'reasoned' decision? or just as a result of your own musing about the Universe rather than any direct contribution from the Universe to you personally.
I think the first three such claims are traditionally risky from the aspect of (and I think of no gentle way to put this,) mental stability. That would not make such claims wrong (if you are indeed making any such claim) It would just make them unadvisable in general discussion groups.
I think it would be simply better to say that you are convinced that your idea of the basic structure and working of the Universe are correct.

To actually prove it, you'll need a looooot of energy though. — EugeneW

Do you mean to experimentally demonstrate that your picture of the Universe is true would require a vast amount of energy input, more than is available by any current scientific technology?

But it proves that theories precede practice — EugeneW

This is often the case, yes but sometimes discovery is by accident or repeated practice causes a general theory to form in the mind of one who repeats the practice 'ad nausea.'

though they're rooted in it at the same time (true and not true at the same). — EugeneW

So you mean theory is rooted in practice as well as preceding it, I can understand what you mean by this


Btw here are the Roger Penrose vids I mentioned:
The first one is the debate with William Lane Craig and is about 1.5 hours long.
The second is where he suggests what might have happened before the big bang.
It's not the more detailed one I watched where he talks about different epochs of time for each big bang but it introduces his basic idea and it's only 17 mins long. I am in pursuit of the other one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wLtCqm72-Y

https://youtu.be/ypjZF6Pdrws

That distant future is now. But I don't think it makes me omnipotent — EugeneW

How can it be now, when there are unanswered questions?
No omni's are possible if we have unanswered questions.

So you think the universe, via us, has become self aware? If we know certain things about it, is that the universe knowing? No, it's us knowing — EugeneW

We are part of the Universe so I think reference to an object is a reference to all of its parts.
The Universe is not yet self-aware as we do not yet know how to combine into a single collective mind of individuals. We would also have to confirm that we were the only such lifeforms in the Universe. I think a self-aware Universe could only be realised as a 'thought combination' of all lifeforms within it.
Fully panpsychist. I am not saying this is definitely possible, I am saying, it might be and I am further saying I am more attracted to that projection of naturalism than I am attracted to dualism or theism.

You think we can èxist as photons? Don't think so. We would have no substance and feel no passage of time. — EugeneW

Photon is merely a label. Is a thought made up of massless constituents? I don't think we know yet.
can a human consciousness exist in the future as a non-corporeal form? Maybe.

We would have no substance and feel no passage of time. — EugeneW

I have always found this one very interesting. I think that a non-corporeal human conscience can still be destroyed. Star trek suggests possible answers to your physics problems. If mass and energy are merely different states of the same material then the question becomes, can a way be found to convert from one to the other and back again, like in star treks transporters/holosuites/food replicators.
The time/age problem is solved by traversing distance in something like a 'warp bubble.' Total sci-fi at the moment and perhaps you will understandably say "Yes, and such abilities will always be total fiction," and you might be correct but I simply prefer the sci-fi conjecture of shows like star trek compared to the god sci-fi.

Now we're getting somewhere! Take of your hat and throw it 6 miles up! Screaming! I don't think understanding can get better. What I don't understand why physics forums are so unwilling to see that quarks and leptons are not fundamental. I asked on stack exchange, both the physics and philosophy site, and the question was closed almost instantly. Though philosophy took some longer. — EugeneW

We all get frustrated sometimes by our lack of knowledge and our treatment by others, some of whom we consider as very learned. I don't think such experiences will stop someone like you from continuing to ask the questions you wish to ask. I celebrate human tenacity as well.

The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.
What does the above mean, anyone?
I've pondered the liars paradox before and understand the paradox, but how and in what sense can it be true, within a particular instance of time?
Also, if it can be true within a particular instance of time, what philosophical or scientific implications does it have? — Watchmaker

I can feel your incredulity and your protest but your last sentence is my main point.
If you personally decided, within an instant of time, that 'this statement if false,' is true then indeed, what philosophical or scientific implications would your decision have? Some philosophers and some scientists would say you are wrong, others might say you are inaccurate and it's more accurate/more useful to science and philosophy to say it's a paradoxical statement. Is it's more useful to say it's paradoxical or it's true or it's false? I don't think it matters much for now, when we consider the current borders/limits/purview of science and philosophy
My simple point is that we need to celebrate the 'thinking' and not get bogged down or disheartened by the enigma. I am pointing out that significant science has only had a few thousand years out of the proposed 14 billion. Perhaps we will be able to fully explain paradox in the future.
It's the same for the origin process of the Universe. Give us at least another million years to work on the problem.

In mathematics factorial represents a function of all possible combinations. If you know everything (a set) you must also know every recombinant or “rephrased” question (the set of this set) then you must know the set or the set of that set and so on into an infinite regress. Knowledge and information can always be rehashed from a new perspective. If it couldn’t then lateral or creative thinking and imagination wouldn’t not be possible. This I believe to know everything is infinitely impossibl — Benj96

Your musings are as valid as mine. You have added mathematical set theory to your musings to strengthen your posit. Mathematics is a powerful tool of logic.
I assign great value to everything mathematics and logic (as we currently understand it) dictates but I personally, don't like words like 'impossible' and 'infinite.'
I fully accept the Universe does not care what I like or don't like but I counter that position with the claim that as far as we currently know, the Universe has no inherent ability to care, other than through lifeforms like me and you. I think human willpower, in its individual and collective form can have a seriously significant effect on the Universe. I don't mean this in any supernatural way. I don't mean that if I could only focus my will strongly enough, it would overwhelm the laws of physics or rules of mathematical set theory. I just mean that my will can allow me to keep believing that it might be possible that in some transhuman form in the very distant future we may be able to traverse and interact with the Universe in ways similar to how consciousness exists within the human concept of 'self.' Perhaps this will allow the possibility of all questions being answered.
I am much more attracted to this form or projected naturalism than I am to any concept of theistic entities which already exist.

Science normally considers the appearance of an infinity, as a failure in some aspect of the mathematical approach used. I think if an 'infinite regress' shows up then the thinking behind it is
flawed. It's easy for me to say this, I appreciate that, especially when I can't offer anything better than 'I don't like infinities.' But perhaps we will have better answers in the distant future.

If we know the basic fundamental workings of nature, couldn't we say then what things would be impossible to do? — EugeneW

Yes, but only impossible due to the natural constraints/rules/laws that appear to be 'impossible to defy.'
It is impossible for mass to travel at light speed within our Universe. If you have no mass then you can travel AT the speed of light but not faster than it. So, the human IMAGINATION, which to me, is just a form of 'speculative thought,' (but still perfectly valid thought) will come up with 'sci-fi' solutions.

Bend a piece of paper and you can touch two points together. This thinking manifested in the idea in Star Trek of folding/warping space. So will it be technically possible, say, millions of years in the future, when we are transhuman to the extent that we can exist as pure energy and can that energy be placed in 'superpositional' states that allow us to be in more than one place/planet/galaxy at the same time.
Will we discover that space really does have layers? Subspace, Hyperspace/ Wormholes etc and will we be able to 'conquer distance' by such or other means.
This is only some of the musings of current sci-fi Imagineers. Look at what human science has achieved in the tiny period of time it has had so far.

My current statement towards all those 'impossibility' claims and the list of 'things that humans can never know and will never be able to do,' is simple. "Give us a chance!"
We do have a lot of time before any of the end scenarios for the Universe occur.
We are still little fledglings in our wee nest called planet Earth, we have only tipped our toes in the vast cosmic ocean.

So a statement can be false and true? The electron has mass but its essence has not? — EugeneW

I cannot totally defeat all the 'logical dilemma's/impossibilities,' proposed by philosophical or mathematical logic but I can offer some thoughts that may nibble a little at their claimed 'impenetrability.'

'What is the beginning and end of a circle?' Well, it can be anywhere on the circle YOU DECIDE it to be.
Every point on the circle can be its beginning and its end. Human will seems to have dominance here.

Can a statement be false and true, well, 'this statement is false,' can by human will, be declared as true.
I think it is more important to ask, what are the consequences of making this statement true for a particular instant of time? Again by human will, we can decide to make it false after that instant of time and then analyse the consequences of doing that.
A simple example would be 'This exploding nuclear bomb won't kill us so let it explode.'
If we decide this is true or false then the possible outcomes are we die or we survive.
To me, that's not what matters, what matters is that we can choose. The choice may be bad or good but we can choose.
We have dilemmas like the barber's paradox but IN REALITY, every barber can get a shave, despite the logical paradox of 'a barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves, so who then, must shave the Barber?'
Human will, can break a paradox by making a decision regardless of logical rules. This must be true as in real life all barbers can shave themselves despite propositional logics position that they should not do so.

'This statement is false.' Ok! I think that is true, oh! now I think it's false, oh!, now I think it's neither true nor false and in this instant of time, I label it a 'paradox.'
Well, that's all fine and dandy, so what do we do now?
Do you see what I mean? The real consequence of such thinking is that the Universe continues regardless of such musings, as does our daily lives, despite all enigmas.
It is that fact we must understand and celebrate.
We can continue to try to answer all questions and try to identify new ones.
Human will, allows me to live a happy, meaningful, useful, positive, contributive life and enjoy thinking about these impossible enigmas in the process of doing so. What happens when an irresistible force meets the immovable object?
In this instant of time, I think it's a BIG BANG and the creation of a new Universe or a new Fred....... but I could be wrong!......

What will be the answer? Will it be the last question in the great book of questions? Will the answer be found in the appendix or supplement of the book? If the answer "no", what will be another question to ask?

Can't think of another question... Is that possible? — EugeneW

I think the last two questions will probably be something like what is nothing? and what is our purpose now?
There would be no more need for memorialising knowledge (no books) if component lifeforms can collectivise and communicate with everyone at will or 'pool all knowledge' whereby access is instant and available to all (these are just my imaginings/musings) I would IMAGINE an omnipotent, omniscient 'collective' would only have the final option to recreate or repeat the process of universe/life creation, there would be no other purpose to them. So if you want to label such as the moment god is created then I can deal with that but as I said before, in a previous post, we could also call such a moment Fred.
It's Friday night, I'm away for beer's and stuff. I will reply to your other two posts tomorrow EugeneW.
Have a good evening!

But what if we can't think such a question (about the fundamentals, that is)?
If we know everything then don't we know also what's possible or not? — EugeneW

Keep faith in us and in yourself. We are alive! and as long as that's true we will keep trying to think of new questions. If we ever know everything, then the question 'what's possible' will no longer be valid as we will know the answer, as you suggest but we don't know everything yet as unanswered questions still exist.

I may not understand the deeper point your are trying to make to me but I will try this:
The philosophers will annoy themselves with paradoxes such as 'is it true that there are no more questions?' and they will point out that this is itself a question and then some will conclude that 'there are no more questions,' is an impossible state. But 'there are no more questions' can also be a statement not a question. If it is true 'at that instant of time.' then there is no paradox.

The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.

I wish most of the people follow your philosophy. But, sadly, the reality is quite complex. Look at Russia-Ukraine war or other issues as Brexit. The governors tend to do the worst options possible — javi2541997

I agree, but at least you and I can shout about it. We can protest and demand better. I am convinced that you and I are actually many many millions, perhaps even billions of people. If we could organise, our voices would drown out the voices of maniacs such as Putin and if that is not enough then our combined actions could destroy all maniacs and stop future maniacal behavior. We have not been able to achieve this unity and level of global organisation yet but we are also not ALL DEAD YET, so maniacs beware, wee f****** see what you bas***** are doing to our chance of a fulfilled and meaningfull life.

Is nothing the same as non-existence? When you say that something came from nothing, are you saying that existence came from non-existence — Watchmaker

Trying to explain what nothing is, is one of the hardest questions there is. The best we can do at present is 'an absence of something.' This is of course a very unsatisfactory answer but its all we have at present. Give us another million years to answer this one. That's not much to ask, considering the almost 14 billion years it took to produce something like you which was able to ask the question.

For me, non-existence has a 'yet' flavour to it. Non-existence to me, still has a 'field of potential.'
But all I can offer in attempting an 'answer' such questions is not an answer at all, but merely my opinion based on my personal interpretation.

I'm not sure I understand. The choice of MAD, mad as it is, will be faced by an emerging intelligence? — EugeneW

Well, I just mean that it seems to me that if you consider history since we left the wild. We were in small groups that united by conquest/ political marriage between tribal leaders and the daughters of other tribal leaders etc and became bigger tribes. Technology provided us with many useful inventions as well as more efficient ways to kill each other. M.A.D seems like an almost 'natural consequence' of our technological advancement. Our rate of technological advancement is tied to our ability to discover new knowledge, which is tied to emerging/developing intelligence. So the choice of self-destruction or facing the threat of self-destruction seems to 'come with the territory,' when we reach the technological stage we have now reached. I was merely suggesting that the current global threat caused by the relationship between Russia and the West was always inevitable. I hope we all survive it and I hope that the result is that the big world tribes will see the necessity to unite into one human species, currently on one planet.

If photons are all that's left, time has gone but there are still photons. Does he say how or where the new bang occurs? Or is that state itself the singularity? — EugeneW

He does say that photons are all that would be left, your right on that but I don't recall what he cited as the source of the 'bounce.' I went to YouTube to find the exact video I was talking about but there are a few so I didn't have enough time to track it down but I will and I will tell it to you in a PM.

But where resides the singularity in Penrose's optics? — EugeneW

I think I was paraphrasing him a little. I think he just posits a new Universe starting within the space of the old. I think he calls it 'Universal bounce.' I can't remember if he mentioned the source as a 'singularity' or not. I would have to watch the particular video again or at least forward it to the relevant point. I have watched most of his youtube stuff, I would recommend them.
I watch a lot of the online cosmologist offerings. I like to hear about all the current opposing ideas.
Currently, I like watching Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Laurence Krauss, Carlo Rovelli, Alan Guth, etc
I have also watched some very good female cosmologists take part in online discussions but they are still 'up and coming' and don't yet have the online presence they should have on sites like youTube.

But suffering is one of the most trascendental emotions we have. To be honest, I think is quite impossible to "not suffer" at all. Philosophical aspects as "happiness", "sadness", "suffering" is upon us and our attitude towards the life.
I even think that most of the days of our lives are full of uncertainty and sadness — javi2541997

I have always held a similar view. I need my suffering, as a comparator, without it or at least, without its threat, I cannot appreciate pleasure. I enjoy food most when I suffer hunger. I love a cold pint of beer much much more when I am very very thirsty etc. Any story of heaven has no meaning to us unless you offer the alternative of hell. I am not suggesting that horrific suffering is desirable and should not be prevented. I am simply saying that we need comparators. That does not mean we will always require extreme examples to initiate major changes in the direction and priorities of our society, as we seem to need now.
Atrocities of the past have caused major positive changes but there are better ways if we become a more enlightened and united species.

Yes! Here I completely agree. But not because gods made it, like you know I believe. The universe and all in it is just great. — EugeneW

You agree, because you are, as I believe most people are, fundamentally good. This is confirmed by your last sentence. Putin and his forces are killing Ukrainians due to perceived fears (justified or otherwise) he has of 'the West'. It's an old human story, that's been going on since we left the wild,
tribalism. The problem is that the main tribes now have m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction facing all of us. Perhaps such a choice does have to be faced by an emergent intelligence such as us.
Perhaps it's a natural consequence of technological advancement. Perhaps if we survive, we will be one step closer to leaving our planetary nest. I hope we choose to unite.

Well, I think I know the answer to cosmological problems (matter/antimatter asymmetry with associated left/right asymmetry, hierarchy problem, arrow of time, fundamental fields, particle structure, etc.) but if that makes omnipotent? Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also? — EugeneW

Let's say you are correct. If you can think of a question that has not been answered and 'proved' then we cannot claim omnipotence or omniscience. I did not understand " Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?"

Similar but not the same. Does he postulate contraction after expansion? — EugeneW

No, he suggests the expansion will continue and heat deaths will eventually reach a point when all that's left is black holes and they will slowly evaporate and then we will only have space which he suggests is the same as having nothing. At this point, a 'singularity' will inflate again and local time will reset to 0.
A new Epoch.
There are various YouTube vids where he talks about this. There is also one where he debates with William Lane Craig. Craig listens much more than he talks, which I think is a good idea for him.

Do we have a duty towards the Universe? Sounds the same like having a duty towards god — EugeneW

'Duty' was just my choice of word to try to suggest a 'strong responsibility' on your part. It was my statement and I am of the Universe but I cannot claim it as a universal dictate, especially if you disagree with it. How about 'kindness/gesture of positivity/support toward the Universe. No, I don't project into the god fable with that particular sentence, in my opinion.

You think we could create a new universe? — EugeneW

If, and once, we have answered all questions, as we would then be omnipotent and omniscient.
This might take a while though.

I was thinking about the universe as something rigid which stays there, doesn't caring or wondering about Earth's existence. — javi2541997

Ok, but as I suggested earlier, I think we are its attempt to develop an ability to 'care.'

I am agree. I want to share with you this paper: The Dark Forest Postulates and the Fermi Paradox. I guess you would like it. — javi2541997

Thanks, I will add it to my 'text I need to read now! list,' sadly this list grows ever longer.
I am some familiarity with the Fermi paradox of vast size of the Universe and probability versus no extra terrestrial intelligent life found so far, despite SETI's efforts.

It is a paradox because while we are supposedly more intelligent than others, at the same time we suffer more about uncertainty and concerns — javi2541997

I don't think this is paradoxical, I think it's consequential. We care and so we suffer and so we care.
We would not act so fervently against suffering if we did not have it as a comparator to non-suffering. Caring is what makes us want to convert suffering into non-suffering.

If our universe has accelerated towards oblivion, it could be a sign for the singularity at the "origin" (of a 4d space) to start a new blast from virtuality (virtual particles). This new 3d blast can expand after us on the higher dimensional space it's in. — EugeneW

I think this is a similar viewpoint to that of Roger Penrose but I think he also suggests that some information can pass from time epoch to time epoch and that each Universe may be very different.
He does not support the multiverse theory.

I might hope so! But is there truly a greater whole? A cosmic Hydra? — EugeneW

Well, If one accepts that the Universe is the 'whole' then no.
I don't like to use mythological beast analogies such as the Hydra in such chats as such analogies don't help my conception/perceptions in any useful way.

Smolin says this happens inside black holes. Im sure you've heard that. But why should we if it all starts again after us? In a hunderd thousand trillion years after us? And if we could, you would have to pass a wormhole. If a wormhole comes to be in the first place — EugeneW

To me, you are just demonstrating 'natural frustration' at not knowing all the answers. Patience is a virtue (so they say). I understand your frustration but don't ever let it dull your focus or affect your sanity. The Universe needs you to do your duty and ask and answer questions as rigorously as you can.

Modern warfare ain't funny anymore. — EugeneW

True, true, true. So true I said it thrice. If we go extinct then, in my opinion, the Earth and perhaps the Universe will be set back for at least many thousands of years.

Good points. Your text is interesting. I simply want to add that we could see the Universe just as something "static". — javi2541997

Hello, first time I have chatted directly with you I think. A pleasure to chat with you.
Can you explain your 'The Universe just as something static' when it has demonstrated change from the moment of its origin?

I still defend that all those characteristics are imposed by humans because we like to improve our knowledge. — javi2541997

I think the anthropocentric tendency of human thought is a valid criticism but recognition of that tendency makes us take account of it when we postulate.

This is why we study de cosmology or astrology. A normal human with a minimum interest for life would at least read or study a bit related to what is going on out there. — javi2541997

Yes I agree but education will for most people, normally result in quick rejection of nonsense such as astrology.

Nevertheless, I still defend (quite pessimistic I guess) that universe is like a huge empty living room that we full it with our knowledge — javi2541997

I don't think this is pessimistic, the universe is physically vast and if we are the only creatures capable of 'complex thinking' then it really is pretty empty of 'meaning'. What a wonder, how incredibly exciting is it to think that we and we alone give meaning and significance to something so vast. To do this by just existing and thinking and being a part of the universe gives me an overwhelming feeling of wonder. Much more so than any story of god and paradise ever has or could.

But imagine humans never existed at all. Well, the Universe would not care because it would be still there.
Thus, we are the ones just walking through — javi2541997

But the Universe may have no capacity to care, except through us. The animals might care a little and thus imbue the Universe with a little ability to care. Maybe the dinosaurs offered the same but we are a lot better at it and we can act upon such in ways that the dino's and the current animals cannot. We can do science. Enough to leave this planetary nest perhaps and ask a lot of new questions and discover new answers about the Universe.

I think the 14 billion years are one in many. I think that solves the problem of a beginning. There is no beginning, only beginnings following each other up. If all is dead and gone here (no pessimism intended here, I keep that for the foreseeable future), the universe reacts back to the source, from which a new time comes into being. — EugeneW

So do you favour the oscillating Universe theory or Roger Penrose and his dissipating Universe and the creation of a new Universe within a new epoch of time?

But not the universe as a whole trying to understand itself. It's us trying to understand. — EugeneW

But we are components of the Universe, are we not?

I don't think we can create a new universe. Why should we? — EugeneW

Not yet no but nature suggests that for the sake of continued survival, it is wise to reproduce.

What a mess... But what can we do? — EugeneW

What many of us continue to try to do. What people in history have tried to do. Learn from our mistakes and do better next time. Maybe this clash with Russia will be the last of its kind if we survive it or perhaps there is another one to come with China. Maybe after that such craziness will become forever smaller and local.

Let's say we discovered the true origin story of our Universe. What would a lifeform like us do with that information? Try to replicate the process? Is that what our Universe is, an attempt to replicate the origin process discovered by lifeforms in another Universe? and on it goes. I am not sure that the origin process matters as much as what each of us decides to do with our life.

I try to consider the Universe before any lifeform that was capable of asking a question, existed.
This was the state for the vast majority of the proposed 14 billion years of time passed so far.
To me, it's a little like sleeping or being knocked unconscious or being in a coma etc. If I don't dream, then I become unaware of the passage of time. This stoppage of time is of course only relative to my conscience. So under my personal reference frame, the Universe came into existence when I was born and will end when I die, perhaps for me, that's where the significance of this Universe does and should begin and end. Personal oblivion before and after my life is nothing to fear.

I see the proposed 14 billion years of the Universe as a 'Universal time frame,' not a relative time frame.
It's 'the past' of the Universe. We can only experience the 'reality' of the sun as it was minutes ago, not as it is 'now.' To experience it, as it is now, we have to 'remove the distance between us,' physically. It's the same with people. We communicate on this website and this simulate's the removal of distance and allows us to know each other a little more but not as much as if we interacted in person, face to face, no distance between us, on a regular basis.

I don't think the suggestion that until 'thinking' life arrived, the Universe was in 'sleep mode,' but still mechanistically changed, is a deeply meaningful analogy but I do think there is some value in it.
I am content to say, for sure, since it began, the Universe demonstrates an ability to change over time.
The main driver is vast (probably not infinite) variety in vast numbers of combinations.
I am currently more attracted to the pan/cosmopsychist explanation of the 'fine tuning' problem than I am to the multiverse/Mtheory solution. As an atheist, I have no interest in the god fable.
I am attracted to Phillip Goff's 'cosmopsychism.' I like his description of:

"If we combine holism with panpsychism, we get cosmopsychism: the view that the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself. This is the view I ultimately defend in my book Consciousness and Fundamental Reality."

If you want to, you can read his 11 page essay at:
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life

When the panpsychists describe the consciousness of the Universe itself., they suggest that consciousness is made up of non-sentient quanta. We only become self-aware due to 'combination of particular quanta.'
I think that natural 'change' in the universe is trying to achieve, self-awareness through the thoughts of lifeforms such as us by means of asking and answering questions. Why this is true is another question that needs an answer. How this all started (origin process of our Universe) is also another question to be answered.

That's good enough for me, for now. It allows me to be happy in my life and not be something more difficult to live with such as pessimism or antinatalism etc. That would make me unhappy.
Sounds very simplistic but perhaps simplicity and parsimony is the way to go

:strong: :grin: :up: :clap: :clap: :clap: :victory:

All power to the people of the Ukraine! :heart:

Chat to ya, out on the treads Garrett!

I will try that penultimate line again.

Let's try to maintain our unity brother/comrade/fellow Earthling

You misunderstand, those channels don't save the country from tyrants. It is specifically the democratic channels that were manipulated to produce this outcome — Garrett Travers

If I misunderstood then we fundamentally agree but you blame 'manipulated democratic channels,' for being manipulated. Ok I accept and I have stated over and over again that true socialism will require powerful checks and balances so that such manipulations by nefarious individuals/groups cannot happen. But you are way off the mark when you blame socialism and democracy by those who misuse
these labels. Do you blame the doctrine of Christianity or the god fable for the actions of paedo priests?
I don't. Politics are not evil, people do evil things in the name of all sorts of 'labels of convenience.'
Your deadliest enemy can appear wearing the exact same ethics as you espouse. You know what intrigue is about. Stop blaming good people for the past/current evil acts of nefarious individuals because they appear the same as the good people. Watch what they do, not what they promise to do. You know this stuff!

Which is why you and your people have work to do to make it tenable. As it has been known is disasterous — Garrett Travers

Yes, this is the true socialist responsibility. If true socialists can never demonstrate that we can be trusted to do what we say we will do, when a population gives us consent at the ballot box, to do so, then people like you and me will shout 'foul' very loudly and the checks and balances must be activated.
There are groups like 'momentum' in the UK who are trying to establish 'progressive alliances,' which may well relate to your label of 'Libertarian socialist vision.' They are trying to get people from any walk of politics to find common ground, to work together, use tactical voting, any techniques that will always stop extreme, nefarious, cult of personality type intentions from gaining political power. This is a start to the kind of checks and balances we need. We have to have worked out and have established very powerful checks and balances before we ever make a bid for power through the consent of a majority. We must have layers of protection. People groups who scrutinise what those in authority do and have the power to stop an unjust act or policy or law and can demand that authority must seek the consent of the majority on a particular issue. We cannot try for power until we can be easily removed if we don't do what we said we would do in the time we said we would do it. If there are legitimate reasons why we can't do it then we must explain and offer those we represent a list of alternatives/actions that they can choose from. This must always include removal from power, at any time. No guaranteed time frame.
The monitor groups will decide when we need to seek renewed consent. The monitor groups must also be scrutinised. It sounds complicated, but we don't want to repeat past mistakes so we have to get it right, if we can't then we can't ask for power. That's the prime directive.
Progress may be slow but it will be by consent and not by force.

It's just, nobody calling themselves socialist have done this, they normally just declared everyone nefarious and killed them. That's kind of the issue — Garrett Travers

Yes they have, so many good people have tried and died trying. The rich and powerful narcissistic bas***** are not a weak force, they have proved that in history time and time again and continue to do so. They will use all the power they have to stop socialists like me. I would get a bullet in the head as soon as I was recognised. They will use their money and influence to divide and conquer, to infiltrate our groups and destroy them from within. They have already got good people like you calling everything we try to do 'evil' because the say 'look its the loony left again,' or they will show you pretty shiny objects to distract you or they will get you all tied up in celebrity worship and show you reality tv shows to distract you, while they consolidate their power bases and hoard wealth, materials, power.
This is an incredibly tough, ruthless enemy. It's very hard for true socialists to defeat them as its hard to be as ruthless as them and sometimes there is no other way to stop them. But we keep trying, we always have since we came out of the wilds, we have been slaughtered by the million. 10,000 years of tears!

Yeah, I mean if the above statements are your disposition, we're on board 100%. That's straight up the key to socialst success, and it's crazy because it's been right there in front of all them, glaring them in the face. I'm sorry your predecessors have tainted the word, it isn't fair to you all in the modern world. But, we'll all make it through if this above is the vision. — Garrett Travers

Thanks, Garrett, I really appreciate your willingness to give people like me the benefit of the doubt.
If we cant unite then the bas***** will keep winning! 10,000 years of tears is enough. We must all do better. I have no particular need for the label socialist if it is just too damaged by the lies of others.
We will make new labels if we really need to but there is real power behind the socialism label.
I would like to clean it through demonstration of the good politics it can represent or at least join those who are trying to do so.

Let's try to maintain out unity brother/comrade/fellow earthing.
In union and in fellowship!

Being rich isn't genocide, genius. Snap out of it — Garrett Travers

No it's not, but genocide is normally perpetrated by brutalised, traumatised, often 'brain dead' soldiers, under orders from scared institutionalised officers in a scared and divided hierarchy which answers to an unelected political elite. Who stole power and are VERY VERY RICH!
But thanks for calling me a genius. I think you are a genius too Garrett, in exactly the same way.

Most of them gained power through democratic channels. No, I ascribe it to state-socialism, which is a fact. — Garrett Travers

Yeah, Putin, who was appointed or 'inherited' his title from the moronic Boris Yeltsin. Any democratic channels you think were involved are of your imagination. These people gain power in the same way the leaders of the Mafia gain power or the same way old tribal leaders gained power. Its gangsta rools mate. Not democratic ones. Perhaps you need to 'snap out of it.'

That's right, they're state-socialist — Garrett Travers

Size does matter but not if true socialism is applied, which it never has been, including the time of Epicurus as true socialism has very little use for a 'leader of most significance.'

The labels they give themselves matter. — Garrett Travers

Of course they do, especially when they are totally false!

When's the last time you saw the label Capitalist, I mean as a loudly professed ideology with principles and strictures, committing genocide? — Garrett Travers

You need to be able to interpret such labels as 'Chinese chairman of the communist party' as the true labels 'Rich, powerful, Capitalist with genocidal tendencies.' or 'Socialist/communist leader of Mother Russia' or 'Greatest at everything, Capitalist leader of the FREE WORLD, Donald Trump' as in Truth
'Lunatic in voted in by the members of an asylum who has serious genocidal potential.'
You are looking behind the wrong curtains!

This isn't an argument you're gonna get away with. If you want to chat with me about this, I want to see some denunciations, and not this half-assed "that wasn't socialism" shit you lefties have been spouting for 50 years. That's old and worn. Yes, it was, it was what socialism looks like when administered by the state, that's why they all look the same. — Garrett Travers

I'm sorry I can't participate in accordance with your rules. It's unfortunate you find the truth 'half-assed' and are upset by how long true socialists have been speaking truth. I can spend my whole life forcing everyone under my power to accept that they see three lights. I can call myself socialist while I do this or any other label which is popular amongst 'the people.' Saviour/Messiah/hero/chosen one/Trusted Philosopher/Ethical. It does not matter. Some of the people will fight on and tell the truth! There are only two lights. Real socialists will always say 'there are two lights, now let's live by truly socialist/humanist politics and create checks and balances to root out the nefarious.'

OKAY, there we go! That's more like it. You keep that mentality right there, and there's hope for you. It is essential that you differentiate the two forever, unlike most of your modern brethren, although I have met a few whom I've admired very much. The non-Realpolitik part, is in fucking dispensible. As in, the moment it enters the equation, you have an anti-human philosophy. Just like most philosophies with force as a value — Garrett Travers

I don't get the 'surprise' your text above exclaims. The position I describe is fundamental in true socialism. It's just that you have been infected by American propaganda, regarding socialism. I have no brethren that would dilute true socialism. Flexibility and case by case is the Realpolitik of true socialism and you must be able to leave, (in the true Epicurean sense, if you prefer) without consequence. We will however secure by hand or by brain to protect our people. So force is a socialist tool of defense only, never attack, never to impose our politics on any outside group, such an act would mean disconnection to our socialism.

My friend..... (sigh)... This sentence and the statement above it are incompatible. Global socialism will require you to violate the consciousness of those who do not wish to participate in good faith. — Garrett Travers

Now who's not reading who's words carefully Garrett?
I carefully said I FAVOUR IT as I think it is a benevolent system for all. I cannot impose it on others without consent, I would not be a socialist if I did so. That's the main difference between true socialism and dictatorial politics. I AM AGAINST DICTATORIAL POLITICS. If you can hear me that I ask you to stop comparing MY socialism with maniac totalitarians.

You have to understand that socialism must be voluntary — Garrett Travers

aarrrrrgggghhhh! I know!! I have been saying so all my political life.
I cannot impose my politics on anyone but I ask you to accept the complexity of getting the balance correct between being fair on a case by case basis with a dissenting voice whilst maintaining the main tenets of socialism and protecting the well-being of the majority of the people involved. That is the Realpolitik and it's difficult but as true socialist, we will ever strive towards achieving it. A good ethics philosopher could help by resisting the temptation or instinct to call us 'evil.'

Have you explored the libertarian socialist vision? — Garrett Travers

I will listen to any labeled concept which will progress true socialism but I am not particularly familiar with the label combination you offer above.

hehahahe! You're alright, man. — Garrett Travers

In Truth, I like you to Garrett. Your knowledge and projections of philosophy remain very strong and I do feel that your intentions towards others are benevolent. I don't mind spats, even heated ones, especially if the final result is an improved understanding between both parties. Even if that improvement is tenuous and small, it's still progress for all involved.

I guess the Clowns in the Clown Car on this forum drove to my neighborhood and got out.
They threw a lot of pies at me but only hit themselves in the face.
What a mess … — Joe Mello

I don't think your god cares very much about you. You and it are visiting the circus in your head instead of trying to defend your viewpoints. You would think that with all the power and knowledge it is supposed to have, it could 'reveal' or maybe just whisper in your head, some words or scientific facts that you could then tell to all us 'clowns' that would turn us all into followers of its new prophet on Earth, Joe Mello. Don't get angry Joe, stay 'mello.'