Really? I stated human and not monkey deliberately.

Ok, I think I misunderstood your meaning with the use of 'discomfort associated with stopping'. I thought you meant something along the lines of 'people are scared to stop what they are doing in case they never start again.' Disturbed sleep is certainly a major concern but I wonder if it was not ever thus.
Can you think of many times in history when the majority of people were under less stress?
World war, local war, majority poverty, famine, pestilence, scary reptiles invading your cave at night!
The threat of hell and damnation if you did not comply with invented religious directives, etc etc

The human mind is contained in the human brain, did you know?

I understand common phrases/idioms very well but such common phrases/idioms can have multiple meanings, it comes down to context and you used "show us your stuff" in the same sentence as 'monkey brain.'
I have accepted your claim that you were using your dictionary description but you may be attempting to deceive, only you know. I see no problem here that I need to consider.

your welcome

I'm sorry to "crack you up", especially for anyone out there who believes humpty dumpty was real and still exists in a very far away place.
I accept that the imagery in your head for "show us your stuff", was your dictionary definition and not related to the actions of a monkey when they feel threatened. Perhaps this is an example of why people have to think carefully before they transfer their thoughts to text as their choice of words/turn of phrase etc are very important. They speak loudly as to who you are! Perhaps you should watch more YouTube debates involving such people as Dan Dennet, Steve Pinker, Matt Dillahunty, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins et al and you will witness how carefully they choose their words.

In Carl Sagan's 'The Demon Hunted World' and 'The Dragons of Eden,' He discusses this area.
Early humans would hunt by day as they could not see in the dark. As well as other sources, they hunted reptiles and raided their nests for eggs. At night the reptiles would hunt humans and attack the in their caves. The sounds shhhhhhh and pssssssst are thought to be amoungst the earliest sounds made by humans and were warnings sounds made by humans. Theses sounds mimic the sounds made by reptiles and warned of the vicinity of a reptile threat. This early struggle between reptiles and humans is thought to be why we learned to be afraid of the dark. Nothing about this is supernatural.
Natural selection/evolution came up with a few different mechanisms for efficient 'maintenance' routines.
Hibernation evolved to respond to a habitat in which few resources were available in winter and plenty in spring/summer. Some creatures enter cocoon states to morph into better adaptations of their former condition. Nightly sleep in humans probably developed due to 'not much else to do efficiently, when you cant see in the dark.' I don't think there is much evidence for a general "discomfort associated with stopping.' If you try not to stop or sleep for long enough you will simply collapse.

I would like to alter my description to 'A sentient being with the capability of RATIONAL thought.'

Fair enough. "I leave the gods to their own devices," would suggest you are not monotheistic, is that accurate?
At what point in the estimated 4 billion years of the Earth do you think these two superheroes existed.
Where is this far-away place where they now exist? By what mechanism do they influence our sleep and death? By what mechanism does an immortal get "replaced by a law of nature", which you then contradict with your opinion, that laws of nature don't exist. The points you make are at best fallacious and at worse ridiculous and leave you at risk of ridicule.


"Just a collection of ideas, no, a sentient being with the capability of thought, yes. An acceptable and impressive description of a human in my opinion. You are certainly capable of verbalising more impressive thinking than your earlier "Show us your stuff," which is a sexual request and something a monkey might do to display its willingness to defend its territory by force. Was that the imagery you were going for?

If you give permission for others to decide or dictate who you are and what you represent then you leave yourself open to accusations of thoughtlessness and risk quick dismissal of your voice as irrelevant.

Are you Theist?

You can choose any other lifeform you like, I prefer any such like, to the easily duped mind of the theist.



This begs what question?

I don't know if you are serious about Thanatos but just in case, If Thanatos existed then so does Thor, the Hulk, Spiderman etc. In fact, there is better evidence for their existence than there is for Thanatos. Fables all. Stories to entertain, nothing more.
The term objective monster has no meaning to me.
Are you theistic?

No, my mind jumps around a lot. I've been accused/described in the past as having a butterfly mind (constantly jumps from plant to plant seeking nourishment). Digression from the main thread of a discussion, can be a tendency I do not control as well as I probably should.
Rather than connections between human sleep and death. Your 'good logic' comment made me jump to Plato's Logos. Much of Western civilization is built on Plato and the Christians have certainly used his musings to push their viewpoints. I was just commenting about the posit that the Logos is portrayed as the 'origin point', 'the beginning', 'the singularity', from which the platonic forms originate. It therefore must be (only from Plato's musings of course) the origin of the moral concepts of good and evil. The logos was associated with the sun, which was considered good. But good in the sense that it provided warmth? or morally good?
I don't think 'good logic' and 'evil logic' can be used in the moral sense. I think you have successful logic and incorrect logic or logical thought that turns out to be incorrect under testing.
A good murderer would be a successful one, that's logical, perhaps even good logic but 'good murderer' would be taken by most as a morally reprehensible statement.
A lion kills and consumes a baby deer. That's good logic on the part of the lion as it helps the lion maintain its systems. I don't think the deer would see it that way if it has the consciousness level required for the analysis. I don't think humans would call the Lion evil due to such actions.
I think much clearer definitions and understanding of the labels good and evil are required if humans are ever to progress enough to be able to overcome the evolutionary fear they formed from their time in the wild and finally get rid of the need for gods and monsters.h


This should be a different thread so please don't let my tendency to digress skew this interesting current thread

Thanks, but that raises another interesting question. 'Good logic' from a duelist standpoint suggests the existence of 'evil logic.' Was Plato's Logos (the source of the word logic) intended as a philosophical 'singularity.' (the root of the platonic forms), Was logos presented by Plato as a construct which was capable of the state 'good' or 'evil?' If so, then did Plato ever suggest a mechanism for movement between the two states?

Thanatos never existed, just a fable, never existed so never slept, was never born and never disassembled.

Acceptance implies choice. Try to say awake, how long will you last.
'Sleep of death' makes no sense. Death is the beginning of disassembly, sleep is an evolved method of physical maintenance. Dead and asleep have very little common ground in my opinion.

You do not physically disassemble in sleep, you will start to the moment you die.
Imagine if we could quantum tag every quanta which came from a dead human during disassembly and trace its 'fate'.

Matter cannot be destroyed it only changes form.

How much 'raw material' from dead humans become part of new humans?
In this sense, we are all part of a commonality of the nature and properties of the raw materials that we are made from. All of those raw materials remain available after death.
I like the idea that an atom/quark or the like that was once part of Socrates or maybe Newton is now part of me. Not so attracted to having a quark from Hitler et al or even a Maggie Thatcher.
At least some of me may have been once part of other humans who died/disassembled before I was born/assembled. Same for animals, insects, trees etc. (don't want to upset any panpsychists or cosmopsychists but always happy to argue with theists)
I don't refer to people in stories that never existed such as Jesus Christ, Mohamed, et al or constructs that don't exist such as the poorly defined 'soul' concept.

Cant kill ourselves because something really cool would happen and we would F****** MISS IT!
A comedy show, a small single malt and then back to the questions!
Not a bad existence really.

When you draw a straight line within euclidean 3D space you are actually drawing a cuboid, you just can't see its width or height, but it's there. So you can't really draw a 1D line, straight or not in 3D space. You can only simulate/approximate it.
If string theory/Mtheory has any truth to it then when you draw a euclidean straight line, you are in an 11D spacetime

Yeah, so we just don't know enough yet. Maybe there is a multiverse. Maybe a universe exists in cycles. Maybe the universe has layers of existence. Maybe every quark is a universe. Maybe if we answered all questions then we would wink out of existence as we may have no further reason to exist. My head is starting to hurt again! I think I will go watch a comedy show for a while. Be back soon.

Curvature of space/time/spacetime is described in great detail on sites such as wikipedia. It would take too many words to attempt to describe the details here. Enjoy reading about it if you have the time and interest.

Space expands, objects such as solar systems or galaxies do not expand as they are gravitationally bound. A common analogy is pen marks on the surface of a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands, the space between the separate marks will increase.
Photons traveling in vacuum are 'stretched' due to the expansion and lose some energy.

One of the most profound questions which can be asked is 'what is truth?'

Many physicists now think that the (badly named) big bang started after Alan Guth's Inflation posit.
Big bang and then inflation has now changed to inflation then big bang.
So the suggestion is now that the big bang did not come from the so-called 'singularity' and the 'beginning' or first event/process/period of quantisable time was inflation.
Something much smaller than Planck spacetime must have existed, during the period of inflation.
Photon dominance does not occur until around 10 seconds after the big bang.
We have no cesium at this point, so I suppose it's inaccurate to even mention the second as a time unit at this point.
I think time can only be described as a 'continuum' during inflation because all matter and energy was part of the 'fabric of space' itself. Matter and energy 'broke away' from spacetime during inflation. So after inflation, time can be quantised as plank time units.
Notionally, inflation happened probably from time =0 to < 10^−36 seconds. In that time the universe expanded by a volume factor of 10^76 or from nothing (or perhaps a singularity) to the size of a tennis ball.

Truth maybe only found outside the matrix, agent Smith.
Was his character meant to portray an agent of truth? Especially when he tried to conquer by means of replication. Mimicking the Darwinian, time-driven, experience of DNA. One of the best replicators that evolution/natural selection has produced. Was it ultimately his power to replicate that made him more 'real' than the other agents. Real enough to take over the body of a real person, outside the matrix?

Truth is another label but its epistemology is probably best associated with relativism, whereas 'Real' is probably more of an idealistic goal or perhaps 'hope' would be a better label.
An absolute truth? An objective truth, well I think things get tougher when you combine labels!

'I think therefore I am' may be 'true' and may provide evidence that I am 'real' but that's probably
its limit. It provides no evidence to me at all, that you are real, from a solipsistic viewpoint.

'Real' is a label for a concept, a property, an idea. Maybe a member of one of the Platonic forms (or Aristotelian ideals) or something that atoms (don't want to champion Plato over Democritus) can achieve when they aggregate in particular ways
Labels help humans categorise. We then use methods such as the scientific method (Perhaps based on the Socratic method) to test the veracity of a particular label. If the label holds then we might use it in an equation/formula/hypothesis in an attempt to gain new knowledge. 'Real' is perhaps just epistemological.

The uncertainty principle establishes that you cannot know momentum and position at the same instant of time. It follows then that the relationship between the two quantities will become more 'disturbed' when you try to improve the accuracy of either, separate measurement.
A smaller error margin in one, will result in a bigger error margin in the other, I think?
If you attempt to go smaller than Planck values then yes, the theory predicts a black hole or 'quantum foam.'
Hawking radiation suggests time does not stand still inside a black hole and that over an immensity of time, a black hole will evaporate.
Your statement does not prove that spacetime is not quantised to the same level that current efforts do not prove that it is. We just don't know yet but I would currently move towards the 'yes spacetime is quantised' side, based on what science has found so far. So, I still hold, in general, that time (or spacetime) is 'real.'

For me the more pressing questions, relate to:
if spacetime is the 'real' state then distance and time are 'not separate' quantities, so, expansion of space, is the notional 'clock' ticking. The current expansion rate is accelerating, This suggests that the 'rate of time' must also be accelerating but this further suggests a 'universal' reference frame for time as well as the more localised, relative, reference frames, within which the phenomena of 'time dilation', occurs. The divisor in the time dilation equation can tend towards zero, which suggests that if you could travel at light speed (within space as currently understood) then you cannot age and you could theoretically outlive the universe you are traveling in!!!
Another mind f### is that in your own reference frame you would still only live your own lifespan.
This reference frame would be effectively 'outside of the universe's reference frame.'
This is based on the premise that Is it correct to say that in the 'Universal reference frame', a photon, traveling at light speed, does not experience spacetime at all? It only enters spacetime when it slows down due to interaction/change in property/pair production etc.

I do have some fun playing with this, with more (perhaps philosophical) thoughts like; 'so, is this like the state dead and the state alive?'
is a photon effectively dead when it does not experience spacetime? does it become alive when it enters spacetime? How does this relate to the human experience? Probably nonsense, but it stops my head from exploding when I try to approach anything near to an understanding of this stuff.

If quantum theory is correct then a 'quantum of time' must exist. It does and is called planck time and it is 10^-43 seconds and is described as 'the smallest measure of time that has any meaning.'
So time exists on that basis. All other time measurements are aggregates of planck time.

Maybe Shakespeare should have posited his question as ‘to be AND not to be’ rather than ‘to be OR not to be’
Might have made his play even more interesting.

Quantum entanglement, ‘superposition’, quantum computing can have a state of 0 and 1 at the same time.
Does this suggest ‘be and not be’, at the same instant in time, is possible?

Einstein shows time as relative and inseparable from space. So there is no time, there is only spacetime.
The smallest ‘current’ unit of time in Physics, is the Planck time or the time is takes a photon to travel a Planck length.
It is posited that a photon does not experience time or space, ‘relative to us as observers’ as it travels at 3x10^8 m/s. This suggests that any photon created after ‘the singularity,’ which has never been slowed down due to an interaction, has never ‘experienced’ space or time, at least, relatively speaking.

Time seems to be ‘linear’ in our 3D arena but perhaps it is not linear.
I think we would all probably accept that time aggregates such as hours, days, dates, era’s etc are nothing more than convenient human measurements but I also think that if the universe as humans generally experience it, is ‘real’ then time as a ‘durational measure of the ‘length’ of the occurrence of an event’ is ‘real.’

BTW, Roger Penrose posits that time before the very stupidly named Big Bang (not big and no bang) would be part of a previous ‘Epoch’. A time duration within which a previous manifestation of a ‘universe’ existed.